Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

702
https://pic8.co/sh/dcE9FB.jpeg

(post is archived)

[–] • 3 pts

Very simple. Cut Welfare. SS is an Earned pay back of wage taxes, and Welfare was never earned.

[–] • 1 pt

Welfare should only be paid out to people who have paid in or who get other people to donate their portion to them. There should never be pockets of welfare recipients in society, that isn't what welfare was sold as.

Also, SS/medicare should only go to people who paid in; grandma of a foreigner given citizenship should not get anything, ever.

[–] • 3 pts

Welfare is never in danger of running out of money. Why not change SSI from an earned pay-in system to a gibsmedat money out-of-thin-air system like welfare since they are effectively the same thing in the end? Of course we know the answer to that question. So long as there are White people who work hard for a living, there will always be a looming artificial threat to their senior years over their heads. SSI is control of working class Whites. Welfare is control of deadbeat shitskins. In the end though it's all enslavement. Some people just had to work harder to get there.

[–] • 2 pts

Not if half the population dies.

Then there's plenty of money.

A lot can happen in 13 years.

[–] • 1 pt

If only there was something that could raise mortality rates, ensuring entitlements were significantly limited...

[–] • 1 pt

SS was always a government Ponzi scheme designed to justify the need for immigration.

[–] • 0 pt

It wasn't made for unproductive people who don't pay in. It also wasn't made to be an account that the government could use. the government became (((corrupted))) and those things changed.

[–] • 0 pt

It can't be ideological only, the vast majority of people directly involved "are in" not necessarily just for the money, but they wouldn't, or rather couldn't, be there without the money/if it wasn't paying, at the end of the day When $100 is budgeted for "the poors", you have something like $1 actually landing in the pocket of the said poors The rest goes in the pockets of the "middle men"

It's a huge chain beneficiaries first and foremost. That doesn't exclude ideologically motivated individuals from participating of course, but no one is going to pay the rents with "ideas"

[–] • 0 pt

Social security was never for the poor, it's a pension every worker pays into. The poor never even qualify for maximum benefits as the pension is relative to income. But with the exception of Canada and New Zealand, no western countries have invested a significant portion of those wage payments as the first generation to qualify paid only a handful of years into the system. It was structured under the premise of 2.5 children per couple with a life expectancy of 72 years. Neither is true and both were obviously incorrect nearly 50 years ago.