I say yes, you say no, OR People are Strange

River_Rat

Just trying to catch up here and I'm impressed.  It looks like the thread rule was followed, yay!

Enjoyful

I don't think so, gracie.  I'm on disability and my daughter doesn't' get anything.

River_Rat - Isn't it nice?  No deletions!

1Athena1

Enjoyful: Yes, a non-working spouse can draw benefits.

Edited to add: I just saw your newer post...but still, for the discussion in general, here goes... 

I simply disagree that is freeloading, though, because families have always been considered a single economic unit. It is just as easy to make the argument that without the non-working spouse taking care of the home, the working one wouldn't have been able to work. It is division of labor, pure and simple. I'm rather shocked that anyone would see this as freeloading.

To be sure, there are inequities - there is never complete fairness. As Wabbit points out, a small family sometimes ends up paying exactly the same as large families for private health insurance and that is quite unfair.

I also do not think it is equitable to compare a private pension or annuity with a government one. The point of social insurance programs that depend on dedicated taxes is that the collective benefit and the need to provide for the most vulnerable outweigh other considerations. Here is a list of things Social Security is not intended to be:

1) The only source of retirement income

2) A government entitlement (contrary to popular belief - and the Supreme Court has weighed in on this)

3) Fair and equal distribution for all

Here is what Social Security is intended to be:

1) A safety net for the most vulnerable in our society

2) An insurance against a "nasty, brutish and short" old age

3) A financially sustainable program that requires payment by ALL in order to succeed.

Alpal

Gracie - dependent children's benefits end at age 18. They used to be continued as long as the child was in school, but that was changed years ago.

1Athena1

E - I'm sorry - this thread is moving so quickly that posts come up that I only read much later. I see what you mean...

The answer to your question is YES: OASDI includes survivor benefits. We all pay into this package that includes several things.  

Past Tx: BMX, TAMOX., ZOMETA Future tx: Deity creation, sheep sacrifice and rain dances.
Diagnosis: 3/2009, IDC, 3cm, Stage IIb, Grade 3, 3/8 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2-

Enjoyful

I don't think it's freeloading either, Athena.  I'm just wondering what the Tea Party crowd thinks. 

River_Rat

I imagine the Tea Party might not have a monolithic opinion on this. This one might split all parties based on individual experience.  I don't think it's freeloading either by the way.

Wabbit

AnneW ... wish we had a 'like' button for your post

It is a fallacy to say that a stay at home wife 'allows' a husband to work.  Both of mine (not at the same time ) were able to hold jobs and do very well in spite of the fact that I also was working every day.

Working women by the millions go to a job everyday, earn income, pay taxes and social security withholdings on those earnings and still take care of a home and their children.  I, and almost everybody I know, did just that.

Athena ... I agree with what you say.  My point is that the libertarians and the TP would have to consider it freeloading if they are consistent about the view that taxpayers should not have to fund other peoples benefits.  So do they?

Alpal

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not sure I even think it's freeloading. I'm mostly interested in what those who constantly decry freeloading think. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be posting this morning.

1Athena1

Edited to say: Posted before I read Alpal's post that directly precedes this one. 

I cannot speak specifically about the Tea Party, but interestingly, Social Security has long been something that has divided the Republican party.

In fact, many southern social conservatives who voted for Bush were furious when he launched his campaign to partially privatize Social Security. Many of them were low income, SS benefits were a part of their lives, and they thought Bush would concentrate on issues on importance to them such as banning gay marriage, etc...

Tea Partiers are a mixed bunch in a different way. They are small government and contain a large portion of social conservatives, but social issues are not (or not yet) a central part of the movement. Social Security and Medicare are certainly against their ideological tenets,  but I don't know how many Tea Party leaders in Washington would dare to directly attack those programs and expect a long life in congress.

The Tea Party considers just about everything freeloading, but I don't pay much heed to a movement that wants to take us back to pre-New Deal era days or even the 18th century.

Wabbit

Why not be blunt?  They are hypocrits about these things.  They are all in favor of huge expenditures of taxpayer money that are for things they benefit from ...  but not wanting to contribute a cent of 'their' money to taxes to pay for things that other people need.  It's only 'socialism' if it isn't something they get.  That is the point here.

Alpal

You're right, WR. Blunt is best! Great post.

River_Rat

<br> 

Athena, well said.

I hope everybody doesn't mind me backtracking a bit but I ran across this today and find it interesting: 

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/wisconsin_public_servants_already_face_a_compensation_penalty/ 

1Athena1

It was hilarious to see all of these conservatives protesting at town halls in the summer of 2009 against 'government efforts to take over health care' and shouting slogans like "keep your government hands off my Medicare"!!!!!

otter

I was going to weigh in on this discussion, but it's getting too hostile for my tastes ... so I think I'll go have another cup of morning coffee.  Our May '08 Chemo Group lost a sister last night.  "EyesOTex" died, and we're all trying to comfort one another.

Okay, I will say this:  IMHO, "Tea Party" affiliates, and those who agree with some or all of the "Tea Party" principles, are no more homogeneous than any other political group here in the U.S.  Could we please not try to paint them all with the same brush?  "They are hypocrites about these things" would be a true statement if "these things" were all black or white.   But they aren't, are they?

otter

1Athena1

Alpal - you've got me in a knot here - lol! Thanks for stirring my juices and an interesting discussion on this cloudy lazy stay-in-my-pjs day! (First work-free day in ages).

Alpal

Otter - you're right. The only Tea Partiers I "know" are the ones who post on here, so that's how I tend to judge all of them, and that's not fair. My condolences on the loss of your friend. We, on the Stage IV board, also lost a dear sister today. Damn cancer!

River_Rat

Otter, Alpal and others, I am sorry to hear of the loss of your friends.  Damn cancer! - something I'm sure we can all agree on.

otter

Alpal, that was RobinWendy, right?  She touched a lot of people on these boards.  So, so sorry...  Actually, River_Rat, some of us are privately using a much stronger expletive than "damn" to describe how we feel about cancer.

otter

1Athena1

Sorry about your loss, Otter. I imagine she is the same person you alluded to on another thread a day or two ago who had stopped eating?

River_Rat

Otter, yeah I started to type that one but then figured it might be against the rules, although I doubt that anybody would delete it.

Alpal

I considered using the stronger expletive!

AnnNYC

Otter, I'm so sorry about EyeOTex.

I have been dreading this news about RobinWendy -- and I believe there's no end to the number of "F*** cancer" 's Robin would wish said on her behalf.  For Robin, personally, the "FC's" would be like prayers and roses.  For her family, my deepest condolences.

Anonymous

House Overwhelmingly Votes to Scrap Plannned Parenthood Funding
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 2/18/11 3:13 PM

The House of Representatives today voted overwhelmingly to scrap funding for the Planned Parenthood abortion business and ensure it can't receive any federal funds through any departments or programs.

House members approved the Pence amendment on a 240-185 vote with 9 Democrats joining most Republicans to support de-funding the abortion business. Another 7 Republicans sided with most all of the pro-abortion Democrats in the lower chamber in voting for the pro-abortion organization to receive taxpayer funds.

Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana was the main sponsor of the amendment, which prevents federal fnuding of Planned Parenthood's national organization and 102 named affiliates.

"This afternoon's vote is a victory for taxpayers and a victory for life. By banning federal funding to Planned Parenthood, Congress has taken a stand for millions of Americans who believe their tax dollars should not be used to subsidize the largest abortion provider in America," he said after the vote. "I commend my colleagues in both parties for taking a stand for taxpayers and a stand for life. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to support this legislation and end federal funding of Planned Parenthood once and for all."

If Planned PArenthood doesn't fund abortions, then why did Congress just pass a law to out law PP FEDERAL FUNDING - something like 360 mill  - specifically for abortions?

Alpal

Erica - no one on here has ever said that PP doesn't fund abortions. What has been said is that PP doesn't use federal monies to fund abortions. And this bill just passed outlaws all funding to PP - not funding for abortions. Surely you know that PP provides many services to women other than abortions. Where does it say specifically? It doesn't. Perhaps it would be better if you got your news from a more unbiased source.

Anonymous

DO any of you know the history of Planned Parenthood?  What the true purpose was??

I doubt it/

Poor teachers = will they be forced now to put in a 40 hours work week?  Good thing they have about 4 mouths a year off to re-coop

Do any of you do any research before shooting out your "Mental Vomit"  ( your word not mine)

WISCONSIN HAS A 3.6 BILLION DEFICIT.   Many thanks to the democrap who ran the state for 8 years.  Funny thing, the teachers union was his biggest contributor, they also opened up campaign offices all over the state.  Teachers "convention" in Wis. is ALWAYS scheduled the weekend and 2 days before the election.  Wonder why?

Why can't teachers convention be the third week of June?  They get a paycheck 12 months a year. 

If teaching is such a terrible job with lousy pay, why is there 300 applicants for one job opening in a nicer suburb?????

I personally know a woman who worked as an aid for 7 years.  She didn't contribute a penny to retirement just like all of the teachers. She is now 55 and can draw a $300 pension.  IF she dies before husband, he gets the pension.  iS THAT FAR ???  This is an aid with no education - 7 years of work - 55.

Most teachers in WI "retire" at 55, draw full pension and then get their job back.  It's called double dipping.  THEY HAVE CONTRIBUTED NOTHING< NOT A PENNY TO THEIR RETIREMENT !!!

Do the struggling tax payers have ANY RIGHT HERE?

Anonymous

Then maybe PP will have to have fund raisers just like other groups do.

The Pregnancy crisis Center in the same block as PP (which your dear president wants to pass a law against) is supported by fundraisers, volunteers, and churches

River_Rat

Sorry if somebody has already posted this but I'm just trying to catch up on the situation in Wisconsin after being away from the computer most of the weekend.  It seems that the police unions don't want favored status from Governor Walker, but instead want his "Budget Repair Bill" to be voted down.  For those interested there are currently two messages to read at this link to the Wisconsin Law Enforcement Association:

http://www.wlea.org/

1Athena1

Very interesting, River_Rat - it seems that they are somewhat caught off guard too.

Anonymous

Just interested....Why do you atheists enjoy attacking the Catholic church so much?