SnyderShrugged Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 The only change I want to see is to allow everyone under the age of 45 to opt out if they choose to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
December90 Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 ---------- Post added September-12th-2011 at 02:42 PM ---------- [/color]By the way, if we're prepared to call Social Security a "ponzi scheme", I think we should re-label the following as ponzi schemes: 1. The military. They generate no revenue on their own. Soldiers are paid based on arbitrary amounts of tax inflows. How is this different from social security? 2. Every government program, ever. 3. Churches. All of them. Can anyone list more? Have fun, be creative. You may think you are cute with this but using the SNOPES test your quoted text would have to be "MOSTLY FALSE" The Military is not a Ponzi Scheme because people do not invest money in it hoping to be paid back by later investors. We pay our taxes to fund a fighting force that defends this country from its enemies. Only a liberal panty-waste would want to completely defund the military. "Every Government Program" - No. Most Government entitlements - Yes. Churches. People don't give charitable contributions to churches with the expectation that future donations will come back to them from the church. Perhaps some people are trying to "buy salvation" but this is NOT a ponzi scheme. Social Security - you put your money in to pay for those who have gone before you and you hope against reason that when it is your turn that there will be enough people paying in to cover what you "need" - The only difference between this and a "true" ponzi scheme is that a true ponzi scheme is voluntary and you can choose to not be duped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted September 13, 2011 Author Share Posted September 13, 2011 Folks defending the structure of social security are delusional. While I can see how it is seen as an insurance program for those who get injured and can't take care of themselves; how do you explain the fact that it pays out to those who are old enough. It's an insurance program, plus one of those super-pension programs that is bankrupting the various local municipalities. Additionally our politicians (in both parties) have raided social security trust fund with government bonds; thus to continue to pay social security will require continuing to play with the debt ceiling fire-cracker. My solution would be to raise the age people can collect, but a lot more dramatically than it currently is. I'm talking mid-to-high seventies; and people that are below that age but currently collecting can't collect. Is this politically possible? No way, given how many folks are dependent on social security to live. However, to pretend social security is not a problem is to deny gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Additionally our politicians (in both parties) have raided social security trust fund with government bonds; thus to continue to pay social security will require continuing to play with the debt ceiling fire-cracker. What is this nonsense you speak. Larry will give you an earful on why SS is rich and bountiful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Insurance! Yep. Every leveraged business in the country is a ponzi scheme now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted September 13, 2011 Author Share Posted September 13, 2011 chipwhich, I really wasn't hoping to get into a discussion on our sovereign debt. Just imagine what will happen if the Federal government had to choose between paying out social security, and paying back interest on the debt to Chinese bondholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 If Social Security hadn't been raided, by I believe the Bush administration, we would not be having this discussion. I believe that Bush and his cohorts somehow figured out how to raid the Social Security surplus and it's going to come to light in the fact that the money is gone, used to pay for rich people's and corporations' tax cuts and pay for wars. Why do you think Gore was so adamant in 2000 election cycle that Social Security needed a lock box? Without Social Security, we would have tens of millions of people over 65 living in poverty, in ill health, the very things that were happening in the US of A before Social Security. Republicans have been trying to roll back the New Deal ever since it was passed and Social Security and Medicare were built into our society to take care of people. Yes, it's an enforced savings program and it was working until it got raided. With the baby boomer generation now starting to retire, and in the full interest of disclosure I am one of them I'll be 60 in about a week, how do those who think we should shut down the program now pay us back for all our working life that we paid into the system, with interest? Don't you all think that would really bankrupt the US of A? Think about it. We need to pay back the money that was raided by rolling back the tax cuts and abolishing the cut off, that all earned income is subject to withholding, and not some arbitrary limit, which has been raised to the level that the rest of us never reach the cut off, but the rich do. I've never reached the level, I've gotten close. Do you not think that rich people don't apply for Social Security and Medicare? Of course they do! If you pay into the system you sure as heck sign up for it when eligible. That's only common sense. Republican policies have ruined this country, from outsourcing jobs (and under Clinton's watch too, Republican lite that he was) to cutting taxes when we needed them the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 What happened to elderly people over a hundred years ago? How did they live? Did all old people crawl under trees in the woods and die? Did they all starve to death? Were they all homeless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 What happened to elderly people over a hundred years ago? How did they live? Did all old people crawl under trees in the woods and die? Did they all starve to death? Were they all homeless? I believe they were immortals srsly, though I imagine families provided hospice care (so they did die, just like old folks of today, just sooner, less costly, and closer to their families), but family structure has been eviscerated beyond recognition. The extended family structure disintegrated, and the nuclear family too for the most part... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 What happened to elderly people over a hundred years ago? How did they live? Did all old people crawl under trees in the woods and die? Did they all starve to death? Were they all homeless?Yes.Life expectancy for white Americans was just 48 years and just 33 years for African Americans--about the same as a peasant in early 19th century India. Today, Americans' average life expectancy is 74 years for men and 79 for women. The gap in life expectancy between whites and non-whites has narrowed from 15 years to 7 years. In 1900, if a mother had four children, there was a fifty-fifty chance that one would die before the age of 5. At the same time, half of all young people lost a parent before they reached the age of 21. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=205 There were very few elderly people 100 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Also, life expectency in 1911 for males was 50 for men and 54 for women. (According to this anyway: http://demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 You can't allow an opt out or it wouldn't function at all, just in the same way you couldn't have national healthcare unless everyone was paying into it.Being able to opt out of #SS with the promise of "oh wow I can make so much more money on my own" is merely a carrot being dangled in front of people. Everyone knows a large percentage of people would mis-manage the money, or maybe invest it in stocks that go south, and then they would really be screwed come retirement and need some type of government assistance anyway. No one is stopping any individual right now from creating their own separate retirement fund outside of Social Security. The idea that you need to stop social security in order to put money into a retirement fund is a bunch of bunk. Just the same as "health saving accounts" that anyone with half a brain knows would be routinely wiped clean to a $0.00 balance for the majority of people anytime routine medical care is needed. dear sirs, please allow me to opt out of our national military industrial complex ponzi framework. my check can be made payable to ..... xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Thank you. ---------- Post added September-13th-2011 at 04:12 PM ---------- What happened to elderly people over a hundred years ago? How did they live? Did all old people crawl under trees in the woods and die? Did they all starve to death? Were they all homeless? in the golden olden days the elderly had a much higher rate of abject poverty than the general population. one of the best hedges against this was popping out a ton of kids with the expectation that some combination of them would be able to support you in your feeble years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 only in the liberal mind does taxation = investing :pfft: And therein is the disconnect between the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives because many Christians see it as a characteristic of the faith they live to help the poor and invest in their well being, and the GOP has duped them into believing that if this is done through taxes then it somehow doesn't count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 And therein is the disconnect between the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives because many Christians see it as a characteristic of the faith they live to help the poor and invest in their well being, and the GOP has duped them into believing that if this is done through taxes then it somehow doesn't count. Is the govt a good steward?.....clean up their act and I bet objections lessen Invest in their well being must be social justice slang,got a scripture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Why do you think Gore was so adamant in 2000 election cycle that Social Security needed a lock box? I know the man invented the internet, but Gore didn't suddenly come up with his lock box idea because he was a psychic and he knew that his opponent would do something that had never been done before. He came up with the idea because Social Security funds have been used to pay for government spending going back to its inception, I believe. Bush and Clinton and Obama all did it too, but they weren't originals in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 I believe they were immortalssrsly, though I imagine families provided hospice care (so they did die, just like old folks of today, just sooner, less costly, and closer to their families), but family structure has been eviscerated beyond recognition. The extended family structure disintegrated, and the nuclear family too for the most part... So in other words, government has replaced family. That doesn't sound good. ---------- Post added September-13th-2011 at 03:27 PM ---------- Yes.Life expectancy for white Americans was just 48 years and just 33 years for African Americans--about the same as a peasant in early 19th century India. Today, Americans' average life expectancy is 74 years for men and 79 for women. The gap in life expectancy between whites and non-whites has narrowed from 15 years to 7 years. In 1900, if a mother had four children, there was a fifty-fifty chance that one would die before the age of 5. At the same time, half of all young people lost a parent before they reached the age of 21. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=205 There were very few elderly people 100 years ago. Life expectancy was lower in the past because of the high infant mortality rate and increased rate of mothers dying during childbirth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 why has focus shifted to social security? Good Lord, we've got 2 wars, an economy on the brink, and 10% unemployment, and the douchebag from texas is talking about ponzi schemes and creationism in science class. Yay, let's take more away from people at a time when they can least afford it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 I'm sure the douchebag would prefer talking jobs,economy and military A cynical person might think someone is deflecting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 If Social Security hadn't been raided, by I believe the Bush administration, we would not be having this discussion. I believe that Bush and his cohorts somehow figured out how to raid the Social Security surplus and it's going to come to light in the fact that the money is gone, used to pay for rich people's and corporations' tax cuts and pay for wars. Why do you think Gore was so adamant in 2000 election cycle that Social Security needed a lock box? With Democrats dominating the Congress for decades why didn't they have a "lockbox" prior to 2000? Both parties were guilty of counting social security funds when they would lie about a surplus back then. Social Security was raided long before Dubba Ya was in office. How exactly does social Security pay for rich peoples Tax Cuts? Call me crazy but I always thought a Tax Cut allows money to stay in your pocket so you can decide whether to invest it, or do that consumer thing and spend it on something that helps grow the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 I'm sure the douchebag would prefer talking jobs,economy and military A cynical person might think someone is deflecting. Maybe he'll write another book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 nonsense. Everyone is capable and smart and afforded plenty of opportunities, they're just lazy. Ask any white male libertarian.Some Black Conservatives I know believe that too. we need more personal accountability. Dog food for the less fortunate, I say. Why does it have to be dog food? Let them Eat TOFU . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Maybe he'll write another book A safe bet nowadays......wait till ya see the movie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoVaO Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 The new census information out today includes data that says Social Security is keeping 20+ million seniors out of poverty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 The new census information out today includes data that says Social Security is keeping 20+ million seniors out of poverty. I think you mean "20+ million lazy moochers". These old people, what a bunch of whiners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 So in other words, government has replaced family. That doesn't sound good.It is what it is. Cutting off seniors from social security is not going to magically result in grandchildren that will care for them.Life expectancy was lower in the past because of the high infant mortality rate and increased rate of mothers dying during childbirth.Life expectancy was also lower in the past because people didn't live as long.In 2008, 39 million people age 65 and over lived in the United States, accounting for 13 percent of the total population. The older population grew from 3 million in 1900 to 39 million in 2008. The oldest-old population (those age 85 and over) grew from just over 100,000 in 1900 to 5.7 million in 2008. http://www.aoa.gov/agingstatsdotnet/Main_Site/Data/2010_Documents/Population.aspx There are many more old people, and fewer young people in proportion, than there were 100 years ago. There were not enough family members to take care of their grandparents and great-grandparents when Social Security was started in 1935, and there are even fewer now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.