Social Security Hurts the Poor and Elderly and Should be Abolished

It is hysterical that you advocate Social Security, yet want to ignore the only means to pay for it (The payroll tax), which I have sufficiently demonstrated is devastating to everyone. I'm sorry; you must defend the payroll tax if you advocate Social Security, and sadly you chose an indefensible position. In short, you lose the argument unless you can defend the payroll tax, which you have conceded you cannot. Yes, we could get rid of the payroll tax, and just install a "much more" progressive tax than we have, but that is just advocating socialism. It is advocating socialism because you would have to come up with another $500+ billion from the people who already contribute $804+ Billion to the government coffers. Even if you are going to squabble over the exact value that it would cost, you are still advocating the most massive redistribution of wealth program that America has ever seen. Furthermore, if you think jobs are going overseas, watch what happens when the government takes all the money from the people who create the jobs, goods, and services that make our society work. I find it wonderful that I have pushed you all the way in a corner having to defend socialism just to get social security to work. You are hanging yourself with your own words, and I have just torn your argument to shreds. In order to get around your failing argument, you assert that you must only prove reasonable doubt that I am wrong. While I have more than established reasonable doubt, you certainly have much more of a burden if you advocate a policy that uses coercion and violence to take money from working people and then places them in a situation where they need the money back when they retire. You cannot get around the weakness of your arguments by claiming you owe less of a burden. Strangely, you appear to believe that Social Security is not hurting most of the people who receive Social Security benefits. This is wrong; it hurts everyone even if some do not need it to get by. It hurts everyone because everyone is better off when people are able to keep and control their own money. Individuals always know how to spend their own money better than government bureaucrats in Washington. Even those who do not have money to give to the government will be better off from the lower cost of living, which I already outlined above. Jobs are also created when the people have control over their own money, thereby putting money in the pockets of the poor. Amazingly, without finishing your argument, you go off on major tangents. I will begrudgingly address some of these tangents because your arguments are so weak that I win whether or not I address them: "This must be why there are no homeless people in the U.S. today. I'm sure adding more to be cared for by "misc." will turn out well. I mean, Americans are so caring and charitable!" First, according to recent government statistics less that .3% of Americans have ever been considered homeless (http://www.heritage.org...), meaning that most get off of it either by themselves, or by help from charities. Your problem is that you think charity must be intentionally sacrificial; this is a fallacy. By providing a person with a job, you help that person much more than charity, and the economy is helped as well. But, you cannot hire more people if you do not have control of your own money. Are you really advocating a "More Progressive" tax? Moreover, as I indicated before: There is nothing charitable about putting a gun to someone's head to coerce them to give their money to Washington to pay for government programs. You claim that I should take that up with the government, which is just a way to avoid addressing the reality of how the Social Security system works. But, back to your nonsensical argument about keeping the payroll tax for yourself over giving it to the worker. EITHER WAY, IT STILL HELPS SOCIETY AND THE POOR! It allows you to lower prices of goods and services, because that extra savings becomes a profit for you, or you can spend the money somewhere else, thereby providing jobs for others. But, you can also undercut your competitors by paying your workers more, which is just as likely as any of the other choices because beating your competitors can bring you more profit in the long-run. You seem to think that once money goes into someone's hands, the money stays there as a fixed accumulation. I don't know who taught you this fallacy? But, an economy under a free-market capitalist system grows, is not static, and transactions of goods and services are freely exchanged. Consequently, we wouldn't need to "give, give, give" as much if the government abolished its programs like social security that destroy the economic growth that creates jobs. The private sector even has a profit incentive to help the disabled. Why? Because, when there is a demand for something, the private sector seeks to fill it. Who do you think built the artificial limbs that have computer sensors to sense heat? Who built the artificial heart? Who created the Internet software for the visually impaired? I'll give you a hint: It wasn't some government bureaucracy. I could go on and on. Still, with unbelievable ignorance, you think that it is good that the people at the top pay all the taxes. I hate to break it to you, but the economic gap is the most meaningless statistic. People are the bottom of the economic ladder have done progressively better off as time has passed throughout this Country. This is true even while the wealthy accumulate wealth. "The Rich Get Richer, While the Poor Become Better off as Well." These are percentages of POOR households in the US that own each of these: 97% color T.V. (25% big screen) 73% Microwave 73% own a car (30% own two or more) 78% DVD or VCR 59% Stereo 55% 2 or more tv's 65% clothes washer 76% air conditioning 56% clothes dryer 63% Cable or Satelite TV Only 2% OF THE POOREST AMERICANS had bouts with hunger. 99% of POOR avoid eviction. (http://www.heritage.org...) Your statement about the massive gaps between the rich and poor is Marxist babble, and is simply not how the world works. The following Countries have less of an economic gap than the United States: North Korea, Cuba, China, the Old Soviet Union, Venezuela, Cambodia, and Vietnam. These Countries have a greater economic gap than all the countries above, yet the poor in these Countries are better off: United States, England, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong (I know this is a quasi-Country). In fact, the greatest correlation between how well the poor are doing economically in a country is the amount of capitalism in that Country. Overall, you wanted to advocate Social Security, without having to address the abject harms of the payroll tax. In an attempt to get around this fact, you claim that we can scrap the payroll tax for socialism. This is not a Strawman argument I am making, nor is it a distortion of your argument. This is exactly what your policy advocates. If you want to take back all the arguments you previously made, and start all over, I would advise you to do so. Since I will have no ability to respond to anything you say after this round, you may actually stand a chance. Otherwise, I will just accept my win.