DON'T TAKE THE MONEY

The payments are taxes, just like any other. The "benefits" are government largess

Taxes (which admittedly was a perverted program to begin with but is an institution until it is carefully dismembered) which are supposedly intended to come right back to the working individual, which people pay into for decades, and which millions depend on as a future hope.

Far from a clunkers programs where any old ad hoc program is put together for a few months and is a temporary grab bag for people whether they are working or not. World of difference.

Taxes (which admittedly was a perverted program to begin with but is an institution until it is carefully dismembered) which are supposedly intended to come right back to the working individual, which people pay into for decades, and which millions depend on as a future hope.

Far from a clunkers programs where any old ad hoc program is put together for a few months and is a temporary grab bag for people whether they are working or not. World of difference.

If you really believe all that, than I envy you. You must worry far less about the country living in your world.

Disengenous post.

Sarcastic and non-specific.

Disengenous = Disingenuous

Disengenous post. Sarcastic and non-specific.

Ok. Let's talk specifics.

Your words:

"People have been paying hundreds a month into social security for years. It's natural to think you should get that back."

A)So what?

B)People have been paying thousands in all sorts of taxes for years. Nobody expects to get it back. The only reason anyone expects to get Social Security back is if they buy into the Democratic fairy tale. Hint: it's a lie and always has been.

"Cash for clunkers and this sickening new environmental entitlement being talked about are coming from money that is just not there and never will be and no one has paid in to."

Sickening? Yes, I suppose. Environmental? Maybe. Coming from money that is just not there and never will be and no one has paid in to. Newsflash. That's the very definition of Social Security. Even skipping the part about us being in debt up to our eyeballs as a country and still deficit spending - meaning there's no money for anything even if there were magical accounts from which social security used to come from, there hasn't been a "lockbox" or "account" for Social Security since I was in infant. It is no more or less funded than Clunkers. Well, since it's an open-ended liability, I'd have to say Social Security is even less-funded than Clunkers.

"Taxes (which admittedly was a perverted program to begin with but is an institution until it is carefully dismembered) which are supposedly intended to come right back to the working individual, which people pay into for decades, and which millions depend on as a future hope."

The people who participated in the Clunkers program had to buy a car. They had to trade an old car in in order to do so. I think you can reasonably extrapolate, then, that they virtually all had jobs, and thus were all paying into the same tax base (the general fund) from which both Social Security and Clunker funds come from.

That millions depend on the farce of Social Security for "future hope" is a tragedy and travesty, but otherwise irrelevant. Well, except for the part where dependency was the whole point of the program from day 1, but that's another story.

"Far from a clunkers programs where any old ad hoc program is put together for a few months and is a temporary grab bag for people whether they are working or not. World of difference"

Yes. It's temporary. Do a lot of non-working people buy new cars? The only difference I see is that Clunkers is over and only people who are actually working got the benefit, and Social Security is a gargantuan permanent boondoggle, with none of the restraints and restrictions inherent even in the Clunkers program.

The sad fact is that social security benefits are not tied to "paying into the system" any more than Clunkers benefits were - in actuality, the connection is probably less with Social Security. Many don't pay diddly (spouses, and others). Plenty (mostly now dead or on the way) got far more than they ever put in. Plenty more aren't going to even break even. The rest of us won't get anything and are just chained in the engine room, shoveling coal into the bowels of the Titanic as she goes down.

I would equate it thusly. Clunkers is a head cold. Annoying, painful, but temporary and easy to get over. Wouldn't want to go through it again, but now just a painful memory.

Social Security is terminal cancer. Not all that painful at first (say 1930s through 1960s), but towards the end it becomes excruciating (were just starting to feel it), and then, eventually the patient dies.

Should we address the head cold? Sure. Will it make a difference in the end if we don't treat the cancer? Nope.

So, to reiterate, if you actually believe what you said, then I envy you, because you must worry far less about the country living in your world.

A)So what?

Don't have time to sort thru your whole post so will answer just this one, even tho I already partially addressed it.

We need to fix (ultimately eliminate) SS, not expand to more junk like clunkers.

Because people have used funds which could have gone into private retirement accounts and these funds are "earmarked" for SS under a payroll tax and almost everyone under a certain income level is basing their retirement at least partially on SS (unlike the other scattered junk like Clunkers which is only grabbed at by small portions of the population for short periods of time) we should not jolt the rug out from under them on this one IMO.

It can be funded for quite a while by revoking funds from a myriad of other existing programs which are wasteful and which people have NOT participated in thru specific "earmarked" funds...like welfare (which has expanded this year), family & medical leave act, Americorps (also expanded), etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. not to mention non-entitlements like garbage Gov't studies.