Question:
My father, a Korean war vet with decorations, needs medicare and Social security to live now, is he a commie?
2007-07-25 06:29:15 UTC
He is a Republican, a hard working man all of his life. In his youth he fought 2 1/2 years in Korea and suffered injuries from battle that took him 15 years to resolve once he was home. I often hear now blanket statements from "conservatives" that any and all social spending programs are essentially socialist and wrong for America, um, he would beg to differ with you!
Fifteen answers:
2007-07-25 06:43:11 UTC
Think folks don't realize how much money some of us put

into social security for our retirement. Now that we're retired

there's too many other places that our investment can be

used. -- guess we can't complain "They shoot horses

don't they ?")



(Thands Dad for your service)
shery
2016-05-18 04:14:26 UTC
Its not due to phase out, and its not broke either. And you will be using it, but later than my age bracket, because you will live longer. The reason for Medicare is because forty years ago we couldn't get insurance companies to write insurance on those over sixty five. They just wouldn't do it because older people get sick more often. And so Medicare came in with a basic plan, and more if you paid extra for it. Social Security came about because people who had saved for a lifetime lost their money when the banks closed in the great depression. So the elderly were left with nothing to show for their lifetime's savings and Social Security was enacted. If you make something like this optional people won't use it. And yet they will still live, and they will cost us more without their contribution since we aren't yet at the point where we would heartlessly tell an old woman to just lay out in the street and die. Social Security isn't unemployment. The Unemployment funds in various states are paid for by employers and in some states employees too, it is an insurance fund, not a tax. In order to qualify you have to have worked a minimum of six months, sometimes longer, and not be fired for cause. Which means its not your fault, and you have a valid work history. Why does everyone seem to think that its fun to try and live on a fraction of your job and not have anything to do or anyone to do it with? People commit suicide because they are unemployed, its not some fun picnic, its depressing and if you are married and have kids and a home and are used to being middle class, its eyeopening as to how the lower half live, and devastating to your self respect. The FICA cap, that's the Social Security line, is $106,800 and we also pay into Medicare through a payroll deductionl. A cap means no matter how much above that number, you don't pay more in Social Security. If they raise the cap, they raise the amount they take in and that would make SS more solvent in the future, even without making people work longer.
Erinyes
2007-07-25 06:39:56 UTC
Cons don't have a problem with the TRULY needy getting help. We are tired of the abuse of the system (which has become widespread) and being forced to support it (under force it is no longer charity for the giver) Cons give generously to charities outside of their taxes so that alone is proof that it is not the giving to charity part, it is however the government cant run things properly part and we are tired of supporting the deadbeat bums.

Your father served this country..He is not a commie.
2007-07-25 06:36:34 UTC
He paid into social security all his life. They took 15% out of his check to pay for those benefits. No he is not a "commie." I am one of those conservatives that you are talking about. Socialism stinks. But what your father is on is not that, it's a pension program. It's a horrible pension program, your father would be far better off today had it been done by a private company. I just hope it's still around for me 20 years from now.
2007-07-25 06:48:11 UTC
How about this one from a Conservative:



I first would like to extend my thanks to your father for his service to our country. Second, I think that any veteran shouldn't even have to worry about health care...especially since he put his life at risk to protect our country. Third, I think that all wartime vets should have the option (not the right) of whatever health care he chooses and have the government to pay for it, after, he served time for the government. You only hear the "conservative" blanket statements that you want. Some liberals give blanket statements that all Conservatives say that any and all social spending are socialist. Any moron knows that the government is supposed to protect us, not take care of us. Police, fire, military are programs meant to protect us....are you catching on here? Free health care, free medicine, free food, free this and free that are privileges for the common public and are not rights or necessary for everyone.....these things don't protect us, they help us care for ourselves. I hope in time when/if I fall ill, I hope my family would take care of me so I don't have to wait painfully for the government to take care of me.



Again, I am sorry for your father's predicament but that's all we have for now but there are programs your father should have taken advantage of early on so he could have "continuous coverage".....and these programs have existed for years.
turntable
2007-07-25 06:44:41 UTC
no...he is NOT a commie...he is one of the few that deserve it...if he got injured fighting in the war then the US should pick up the tab for that...social programs are good as crutch to help people get back on their feet...it should never be a life style...that's what i am against...growing up in a society thinking that the government owes you something because you were born...
2007-07-25 06:41:49 UTC
no im fine with helping the elderly and the truely disabled, but i dont like spending money on welfare for idiots. libertarians are the ones who want social spending totally wiped out, moderate conservatives know that some is needed
2007-07-25 06:47:17 UTC
While being FAR from perfect, Social security is all that a lot of people have in this country to live on!!

Thank God that the democrats put it in!!

Had not been for them, and the Social security Program, these folks would be shot as moochers by the compassionate conservatives!!

Medicare is another fine example of how the democratic party has helped the elderly.

I'm not saying that both of these programs are NOt being abused, because they are.

If the government would AS get serious about prosecuting the abusers as they are about sending kids to jail for smoking pot these programs would be in a lot better shape.



BUT THE #1 ISSUE REGARDING SOCIAL SECURITY IS GETTING IT SEPARATED FROM THE GENERAL FUND SO POLITICANS CAN'T ROB IT. !!!



What do you do when you want to screw only the working people of your nation with the largest tax increase in history and hand those trillions of dollars to your wealthy campaign contributors, yet not have anybody realize you've done it? If you're Ronald Reagan, you call in Alan Greenspan.

Through the "golden years of the American middle class" - the 1940s through 1982 - the top income tax rate for the hyper-rich had been between 90 and 70 percent. Ronald Reagan wanted to cut that rate dramatically, to help out his political patrons. He did this with a massive tax cut in the summer of 1981.

The only problem was that when Reagan took his meat axe to our tax code, he produced mind-boggling budget deficits. Voodoo economics didn't work out as planned, and even after borrowing so much money that this year we'll pay over $100 billion just in interest on the money Reagan borrowed to make the economy look good in the 1980s, Reagan couldn't come up with the revenues he needed to run the government.

Coincidentally, the actuaries at the Social Security Administration were beginning to get worried about the Baby Boomer generation, who would begin retiring in big numbers in fifty years or so. They were a "rabbit going through the python" bulge that would require a few trillion more dollars than Social Security could easily collect during the same 20 year or so period of their retirement. We needed, the actuaries said, to tax more heavily those very persons who would eventually retire, so instead of using current workers' money to pay for the Boomer's Social Security payments in 2020, the Boomers themselves would have pre-paid for their own retirement.

Reagan got Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Alan Greenspan together to form a commission on Social Security reform, along with a few other politicians and economists, and they recommend a near-doubling of the Social Security tax on the then-working Boomers. That tax created - for the first time in history - a giant savings account that Social Security could use to pay for the Boomers' retirement.

This was a huge change. Prior to this, Social Security had always paid for today's retirees with income from today's workers (it still is today). The Boomers were the first generation that would pay Social Security taxes both to fund current retirees and save up enough money to pay for their own retirement. And, after the Boomers were all retired and the savings account - called the "Social Security Trust Fund" - was all spent, the rabbit would have finished its journey through the python and Social Security could go back to a "pay as you go" taxing system.

Thus, within the period of a few short years, Reagan dramatically dropped the income tax on America's most wealthy by more than half, and roughly doubled the Social Security tax on people earning $30,000 or less. It was, simultaneously, the largest income tax cut in America's history (almost entirely for the very wealthy), and the most massive tax increase in the history of the nation (which entirely hit working-class people).

But Reagan still had a problem. His tax cuts for the wealthy - even when moderated by subsequent tax increases - weren't generating enough money to invest properly in America's infrastructure, schools, police and fire departments, and military. The country was facing bankruptcy.

No problem, suggested Greenspan. Just borrow the Boomer's savings account - the money in the Social Security Trust Fund - and, because you're borrowing "government money" to fund "government expenditures," you don't have to list it as part of the deficit. Much of the deficit will magically seem to disappear, and nobody will know what you did for another 50 years when the Boomers begin to retire 2015.

Reagan jumped at the opportunity. As did George H. W. Bush. As did Bill Clinton (although Al Gore argued strongly that Social Security funds should not be raided, but, instead, put in a "lock box"). And so did George W. Bush.

The result is that all that money - trillions of dollars - that has been taxed out of working Boomers (the ceiling has risen from the tax being on your first $30,000 of income to the first $90,000 today) has been borrowed and spent. What are left behind are a special form of IOUs - an unique form of Treasury debt instruments similar (but not identical) to those the government issues to borrow money from China today to fund George W. Bush's most recent tax cuts for billionaires (George Junior is still also "borrowing" from the Social Security Trust Fund).

Former Bush Junior Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill recounts how Dick Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Cheney was either ignorant or being disingenuous - it would be more accurate to say, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter if you rip off the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for them, and don't report that borrowing from the Boomers as part of the deficit."
Brian
2007-07-25 06:46:24 UTC
Seeing as we pay every week into our Social Security and medicare and disbursements are based on what was paid into it I would say no.
Incognito
2007-07-25 06:33:12 UTC
No he is not a commie. Just an example of where our country's priorities are NOT.



Best of luck to you and your father, there are people who care in this country.
2007-07-25 06:33:46 UTC
Even you admit that socialist programs are a form of Communism.
2007-07-25 06:32:48 UTC
His medical isnt a "social" program. His medical is the benefits guranteed him by our government in exchange for defending our freedoms.

A social program would be to pay for everyones medical treatment regardless if they served in the armed forces or not. Get it?
2007-07-25 06:35:31 UTC
There's a big difference between earning it and expecting free entitlements. He's earned his. :)
John K
2007-07-25 06:33:46 UTC
no he is a citizen of the USA and he shuld contact his congressman or senator and ask for their help -- he will get it
Briar Rose
2007-07-25 06:35:03 UTC
The conservatives will say,



"Well, is it my fault that your father served in the Korean War and was injured? Let him die, because it was his choice."



I suspect that conservatives have the size of Mr. Grinch's heart.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...