Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, your fellow right winger on this thread already spilled the beans.
You can cut that act, like you care about middle class benefits.
Right wingers want to kill SS because it's been a wonderful example of good government. It has a low 1% overhead.
But like I say. Any voters stupid enough to vote GOP deserves to have their SS taken away.
Everybody is an individual. Something you seem to be forgetting. I personally want options for people. If you want the govt managing your money great. Plenty of people don't. Frankly, they are terrible at it imo.
As long as the United States government has an exclusive monopoly on the use of force through taxation (Social Security taxes) then Social Security is not bankrupt and it will never be bankrupt. All the US government has to do is raise the amount that is collected through payroll taxes (taxe on earned income as opposed to portfolio and/or investment income) and then make the program not bankrupt.
Now, that comes with a catch. There is a limit to how much the American economy could eventually handle in the even that occured. Since the tax that would be raised would be on earned income (payroll income) and not all of the other forms of income - it would absolutely devaste and already crippled economy that has not seen real wage rates among the bottom 50% rise in the last 30 years. Increasing the SS tax on those wages would have horrible consequences. At least for those people that derive most or all of their income needed to survive from wages - and not those that secure income from investments, stock market, trust funds, pensions, etc, etc, etc.
not only that but the plan is to cut benefits for the military personnel:
In the same 2013 budget, the White House proposes to increase medical and pharmaceutical costs paid by veterans while reducing their cost-of-living increases.
imagine what 7 trillion in the united states private sector would do for this country-if it wasn't all stolen or "lost" on its way to war.
people have to remember that the social security system is nothing but a felony. the ponzie scheme is just that. it takes/steals money from alot of people and pays it back to a few. that works just fine when 20 people are paying in and only 1 is taking out. also it works when people only live a few years past the age of retirement.
now when there are more people taking out than are putting in, the ponzie scheme starts to reveal itself as nothing but a felony.
the social security system is at that point now as millions of baby boomers start to retire and they are living longer too.
the baby boomers will start to make the social security system insolvent as more and more retire, stop putting money in and start taking money out of it.
the dominoes are falling, and people still believe in a felony.
why was someone like madoff prosecuted for what the federal goverment does on a daily basis.
The society of actuaries has issued a number of good 20+ page papers dealing with the pros/cons of an unfunded paygo system and the challenges facing SS in the long term. (It's the medical part that is causing the most trouble).
If anyone is interested in a truly unbiased intelligent analysis of these types of systems, how SS and all its parts work and how they are doing then I suggest you google around using terms like SOA Social Security Fund Solvency Paper.
I'm not going to link it because if you are really interested you will put in the effort and there is so much mindless partisan garbage in this thread I'm not going to throw pearls before swine so to speak.
social Security is not going bankrupt and if we eliminate the "Trust Fund" and the upper limit on taxable wages to include all income from all sources, never will.
people have to remember that the social security system is nothing but a felony. the ponzie scheme is just that. it takes/steals money from alot of people and pays it back to a few. that works just fine when 20 people are paying in and only 1 is taking out. also it works when people only live a few years past the age of retirement.
now when there are more people taking out than are putting in, the ponzie scheme starts to reveal itself as nothing but a felony.
the social security system is at that point now as millions of baby boomers start to retire and they are living longer too.
the baby boomers will start to make the social security system insolvent as more and more retire, stop putting money in and start taking money out of it.
the dominoes are falling, and people still believe in a felony.
why was someone like madoff prosecuted for what the federal goverment does on a daily basis.
It's not a ponzi scheme. In fact, you really can't have an intelligent conversation about it unless you correctly identify the various components.
You are talking solely about the retirement benefit component perhaps?
people have to remember that the social security system is nothing but a felony. the ponzie scheme is just that. it takes/steals money from alot of people and pays it back to a few. that works just fine when 20 people are paying in and only 1 is taking out. also it works when people only live a few years past the age of retirement.
now when there are more people taking out than are putting in, the ponzie scheme starts to reveal itself as nothing but a felony.
the social security system is at that point now as millions of baby boomers start to retire and they are living longer too.
the baby boomers will start to make the social security system insolvent as more and more retire, stop putting money in and start taking money out of it.
the dominoes are falling, and people still believe in a felony.
why was someone like madoff prosecuted for what the federal goverment does on a daily basis.
And it hasn't been helped by Obama's "payroll tax" reduction.
He didn't have the nerve to call it what it is, Social Security reduction.
REDUCING the amount going into the fund sure doesn't help.
One thing many are NOT aware of. The SSA is ALREADY paying out MORE then it is taking in. It started in 2010.
"This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes (http://www.cbo.gov/budget/factsheets/2010b/OASDI-TrustFunds.pdf - broken link), an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office."
And it hasn't been helped by Obama's "payroll tax" reduction.
He didn't have the nerve to call it what it is, Social Security reduction.
REDUCING the amount going into the fund sure doesn't help.
I can't understand why more people aren't really upset by this. There almost seems to be a silent conspiracy to end Social Security.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
