Social Security Is Not 'Insurance'

Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Dec 28, 2010.

  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Social Security Is Not 'Insurance'[/FONT]

    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]by Ron Paul[/FONT] ​

    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Perhaps the biggest media story of 2010 was the influence of Tea Party voters on the congressional landscape. The new congress comes to Capitol Hill with a mandate to end profligate spending and restore fiscal sanity, we are told. But when the House and Senate convene in January, the newly elected members will face tremendous pressure to maintain spending levels for entitlement programs. Even the most modest proposals to trim Social Security or Medicare spending will be met with howls of indignation and threats of voter revolt. Legislators who propose any kind of means testing or increased retirement ages can expect angry visits from senior citizen lobbyists ready to fund a candidate back home who supports the status quo.[/FONT]

    - rest at www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul714.html
     
  2. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am sure that I will get very little if any of the Social Security monies that have been extorted and robbed from me.

    It never was destined to work because it left Government with it's hands in the till.

    It should have been privatized years ago...

    Sure, enforce the contributions. But, privatize to prevent vote buying and access by Congress...

    If I had had the option of investing *MY* Social Security Extrotion myself I would have had far more to look forward to than poverty once I am forced to retire by ill health...


    No Social Security is NOT Insurance...

    It's Robbery and Broken Promises!
     
  3. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    SS is a very successful welfare program. Without SS half the retired people would be eating out of dumpsters and soup lines.
     
  4. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,093
    Likes Received:
    218
    You are absolutely right - because that is what all retirees did back in the 19th century (that would be 1800-1899)
     
  5. AresMan

    AresMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    If it were successful, it would not need to be funded by deficit spending and inflation.

    See David Walker's many analyses
    http://www.gao.gov/cghome/nytoped.pdf

    Yeah, just like they did all throughout history, right?

    In other words, half the retired people were incapable of saving enough money for retirement? Nice, the way you view people.

    This is more than likely the case now as people have become conditioned on the rhetoric that they need it and no longer receive proper education about financial thrift and responsibility. People now believe the "experts" that they need to get into debt to "buy" everything they want now and have to eat up anything they could normally save to make payments of principle plus interest.

    Please read Dave Ramsey's book The Total Money Makeover. It completely dispels the debt myths and provides a proven formula for most people to live fairly well-to-do with some sacrifice upfront.
     
  6. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]

    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
    [/FONT]

    He got that right. It's a ponzi scheme and the government is the only winner.
     
  7. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, and very shortly that will be the case again, even with SS as it goes bankrupt.

    It's either that or euthanasia and tripling the taxes...

    but that exactly what SS really stands for The obama SS!
     
  8. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Modest changes in Social Security - if implemented soon - over time easily keep Social Security solvent in its current basic structure:

    www.brookings.edu/papers/2003/12saving_orszag.aspx

    So if the current system structure is going to continue - which I think it will - the Diamond-Orszag proposal is probably as good as there is.


    I am personally all for moving to a totally privatized system of savings, but I doubt that will happen. President Bush tried to push a very modest proposal to privatize only a portion of Social Security in 2005 and got nowhere with it.
     
  9. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >If it were successful, it would not need to be funded by deficit spending and inflation.

    SS is funded the same way the Army is funded. No one claims the Army will go broke.

    >Yeah, just like they did all throughout history, right?

    Throughout history 80% of the population were slaves, serfs, and working poor who lived hand to mouth and died in their traces. The large middle class is a 20th century phenomenon, mostly a post WW2 bubble which is deflating.

    >In other words, half the retired people were incapable of saving enough money for retirement? Nice, the way you view people.

    YES, THIS NOW TRUE! Half the people have less than a few thousand net liquid assets. Half the people have a negative net assets if one counts mortgages, car payments, and credit card balance.

    "Experts" claim every family should have an emergency fund (Cash in the bank) equal to three months total bills. How many on this list do? More than half?

    Average person retires with less than $50K liquid savings.
     
  10. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,093
    Likes Received:
    218
     
  11. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    We already have term limits. They're called elections. :)
     
  12. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,093
    Likes Received:
    218
    In most elections, Reps are re-electied at a rate of 90+%. And why are most reps re-elected - because of the seniorty system. The more senior you are (time wise) the more pork you bring home.
     
  13. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do not approve of restricting access to the ballot, Salty. If voters want to keep re-electing the same person for a hundred years they should have the right to do so.
     
  14. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,093
    Likes Received:
    218
    The problem there is a handful of Rep who keep getting re-elected run the game- Congress should represent the entire United States, not just a few seniors...

    In theory - terms limits sounds good, but under the current system it is not working.
     
  15. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    If Hitler and Stalin were alive they would be reelected in their respective countries. And Nero?
     
  16. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    [SIZE=+0]Social security is not the problem. The congress is lying to the people about social security as being the problem so that they can continue to spend, spend, spend. [/SIZE]
    [SIZE=+0]As of the end of calendar year 2008, the accumulated surplus stood at just over $2.4 trillion in social security.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=+0]The people need to wake up on this issue. The congress are the ones who have gotten us in the debt mess not social security. Social security has never been a burden on the budget. It has always payed for itself. We are now 14 trillion in debt in the general fund because of government lavish living and over spending. One trillion is a million dollars a day, every day, for 2739 years. We are 14 times that in debt.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=+0]We are borrowing 25% today for every government check we write except social security checks which is in the black with a surplus, 2.4 trillion surplus. That surplus is not expected to be depleted until around 2042 to 2052 which at that time the baby boomers time will be over and things will settle down as they are dying off. In 30 to 40 years they will mostly be dead and the system will be normal.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=+0]Because congress has gotten us in the debt mess they need to be the ones who take the first cuts. First a 25% across the board pay cut, do away with their lavish health care and put them on a 80/20 plan where they pay 50% of their premiums and if they want family coverage they pay 100% of that. They need to do away with their lavish retirement plans and go on social security like everyone else.[/SIZE]
    People stop believing these lying politicians and write them and demand that they take the first cuts for getting us in the mess we are in.
     
    #16 freeatlast, Jan 1, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 1, 2011

Share This Page

Loading...