The future of Social Security

[michaeledward]

Show me the money trail from whatever big business is benifitting from keeping social security as it is. Yet this unstable pyramid scheme is known as the third rail of politics- touch it and you die. I honestly think that social securities and other entitilement programs are bigger threats than Iran or China. Yet no one is able to deal with the problem because the seasoned citizens will vote out of office anyone who even hints at cutting back on their bingo money.
.

Social Security is one of the most efficient and effective programs run anywhere, public or private.

The money trail points directly at the 'privatization' plan proposed by Herr Bush, turn over the money management to private companies will benefit whom, exactly? Have you read Warren Buffets' annual investor newletter?

And you speak of education, as if it is something others are lacking.

 

[Don Roley]

Social Security is one of the most efficient and effective programs run anywhere, public or private.

The money trail points directly at the 'privatization' plan proposed by Herr Bush, turn over the money management to private companies will benefit whom, exactly? Have you read Warren Buffets' annual investor newletter?

And you speak of education, as if it is something others are lacking.

Oh, another insult. artyon:

I really can't believe that anyone would try to say that social security is effective- not in the long run. It is a pyramid scheme and requires more people at the bottom rungs than at the top. Declining birth rates are already causing problems for Japan's system. That is just a simple fact that anyone can see.

Turning the money over to private businesses will help them of course- and also help the consumer. It is like Fed Ex and the postal service in many ways. No one can show a direct link to these companies that may benifit and the money trail to Bush- but it does not stop a lot of people from trying to paint the picture that Bush is in their pockets. The real reason so many oppose the plan is because they fear that they may lose or that they just want to attack the president at every oppurtunity. The latter are of course to be expected, but the former are what I talk about when I mention those that will vote out anyone who threatens their bingo money.

Again, until we get the common person to do some research or admit they don't know enough to make a choice that we can get better politicians.

 

[michaeledward]

Oh, another insult.

I really can't believe that anyone would try to say that social security is effective- not in the long run. It is a pyramid scheme and requires more people at the bottom rungs than at the top. Declining birth rates are already causing problems for Japan's system. That is just a simple fact that anyone can see.

Turning the money over to private businesses will help them of course- and also help the consumer. It is like Fed Ex and the postal service in many ways. No one can show a direct link to these companies that may benifit and the money trail to Bush- but it does not stop a lot of people from trying to paint the picture that Bush is in their pockets. The real reason so many oppose the plan is because they fear that they may lose or that they just want to attack the president at every oppurtunity. The latter are of course to be expected, but the former are what I talk about when I mention those that will vote out anyone who threatens their bingo money.

Again, until we get the common person to do some research or admit they don't know enough to make a choice that we can get better politicians.

Please, instead of arguing concepts and ideas. Please put forward some facts. I don't believe you are incapable of comprehending the facts, but you continue to put forth 'talking points'; Clever, but false, right wing fascist arguments - 'only business can save us'.

If you don't want insults, don't make insulting comments - I find the characterization of Social Security as a 'Pyramid Scheme' insulting.

Social Security is extremely effective, in the short run and in the long run. It takes far less money to administer this program than just about anything else, run by anyone else, and it benefits many more people than just about any other program.

What is your definition of 'effective'?

What is the current state of the Social Security program?

What are the projections of the Social Security program?

As a percentage, how much does it cost to administer the Social Security program?

As a percentage, how much does it cost to administer private retirement programs?

 

[Don Roley]

Please, instead of arguing concepts and ideas. Please put forward some facts. I don't believe you are incapable of comprehending the facts, but you continue to put forth 'talking points'; Clever, but false, right wing fascist arguments - 'only business can save us'.

If you don't want insults, don't make insulting comments - I find the characterization of Social Security as a 'Pyramid Scheme' insulting.

Social Security is extremely effective, in the short run and in the long run. It takes far less money to administer this program than just about anything else, run by anyone else, and it benefits many more people than just about any other program.

I have trouble anyone can say that with a straight face. Having what I say called facist, yeah I can imagine that on the internet. But to say that social security is not a pyramid scheme boggles the mind. I am not trying to be insulting with calling it that- it fits the same pattern. You try that system on your own and they will lock you up. It caused an entire goverment to collapse already- and we are still paying into it. I know many people who openly say that they are paying into social security, but don't expect to see much if any of it returned to them.

You call the president "Herr Bush" and yet say that you will continue to personally insult me if I use the term "Pyramid scheme" when talking about social security. Can you see how I look on that?

I do not consider the amount of people dependent on social security now to be a standard of its effectiveness. Just the opposite. I look towards what happens when we get the greying of society that we can all see coming.

You need more people paying into the system than taking from it to make it work. I can't see how anyone in this age would think that is a stable, effective system.

But we can't touch it. Those that want it to remain in its state do not represent a big corporation. We are talking about the AARP and not AT&T. They are only worried about themselves and the short term. And I do not see how anyone who makes and honest effort to stop this problem can get themselves elected.

 

[michaeledward]

I have trouble anyone can say that with a straight face. Having what I say called facist, yeah I can imagine that on the internet. But to say that social security is not a pyramid scheme boggles the mind. I am not trying to be insulting with calling it that- it fits the same pattern. You try that system on your own and they will lock you up. It caused an entire goverment to collapse already- and we are still paying into it. I know many people who openly say that they are paying into social security, but don't expect to see much if any of it returned to them.

You call the president "Herr Bush" and yet say that you will continue to personally insult me if I use the term "Pyramid scheme" when talking about social security. Can you see how I look on that?

I do not consider the amount of people dependent on social security now to be a standard of its effectiveness. Just the opposite. I look towards what happens when we get the greying of society that we can all see coming.

You need more people paying into the system than taking from it to make it work. I can't see how anyone in this age would think that is a stable, effective system.

But we can't touch it. Those that want it to remain in its state do not represent a big corporation. We are talking about the AARP and not AT&T. They are only worried about themselves and the short term. And I do not see how anyone who makes and honest effort to stop this problem can get themselves elected.

There were some questions in that prior post that asked for factual answers.

 

[Lisa]

Moderator Note.
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Lisa Deneka
-MT Moderator-

 

[Don Roley]

There were some questions in that prior post that asked for factual answers.

And I gave factual answers. No one can predict the future but certain things are known and have proven track records. Social security has more people paying into it than recieving. The birthrate is not expanding as much as it did and may follow Japan in dropping into the negatives. Any system like that runs into a wall when you can't expand anymore which is why pyramid schemes are illeagle. I don't see how anyone can dispute these facts and have a cheery outlook for the future of the system.

 

[michaeledward]

And I gave factual answers. No one can predict the future but certain things are known and have proven track records. Social security has more people paying into it than recieving. The birthrate is not expanding as much as it did and may follow Japan in dropping into the negatives. Any system like that runs into a wall when you can't expand anymore which is why pyramid schemes are illeagle. I don't see how anyone can dispute these facts and have a cheery outlook for the future of the system.

Population and birthrate are not synonomous. Immigration?

I'm sorry, what fact did you state for the efficiency of Social Security --- i.e. how much does it cost to administer the program compared to private systems?

Don't confuse effectiveness (how many people are served) with efficiency (costs as a percentage of the program).

EDIT ...

You know what, We shouldn't be gunkin' up this thread.
My apologies to those who are curious about non-aligned voters.

 

[shesulsa]

Moderator Note:

This is the discussion on social security split from the thread on voting.

The Moderator warning is included and still stands.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Senior Moderator

 

[Don Roley]

Population and birthrate are not synonomous. Immigration?

I'm sorry, what fact did you state for the efficiency of Social Security --- i.e. how much does it cost to administer the program compared to private systems?

Immigration? Seriously, you just can't import people forever. The cost of administartion is irrelevent when you have a system as inherintly unstable as a pyramid scheme where more people are supposed to pay into it than are paid.

We could keep letting people into the country (not a popular idea) until all of North America is wall to wall cities. Then what will we do?

 

[shesulsa]

Let's pick a topic and stay on it, shall we?

 

[Don Roley]

Let's pick a topic and stay on it, shall we?

I honestly think we are. Social security's future is based on how we will pay for it. As long as we have a system that needs more people paying into it than taking out, it is inherintly unstable. Mike's suggestion of immigration is just not enough- yet it is the reason that America's population (and people paying into social security) is rising while Japan's is sinking.

But you can't keep expanding the population forever like that. What happens to the future of social security when the population stops expanding as fast as it has? It has already slowed so much that they will have to cut back on benefits within my lifetime. I doubt they can pay much when my kids get to be that age. And yet they will be chained to this system for their entire adult lives. They probably will have to pay in more than I because of the demands of the senior citizens who vote more than the typical citizen. But I doubt they will see dime one from it themselves. That makes me mad.

 

[michaeledward]

I honestly think we are. Social security's future is based on how we will pay for it. As long as we have a system that needs more people paying into it than taking out, it is inherintly unstable. Mike's suggestion of immigration is just not enough- yet it is the reason that America's population (and people paying into social security) is rising while Japan's is sinking.

But you can't keep expanding the population forever like that. What happens to the future of social security when the population stops expanding as fast as it has? It has already slowed so much that they will have to cut back on benefits within my lifetime. I doubt they can pay much when my kids get to be that age. And yet they will be chained to this system for their entire adult lives. They probably will have to pay in more than I because of the demands of the senior citizens who vote more than the typical citizen. But I doubt they will see dime one from it themselves. That makes me mad.

It was not a suggestion that immigration would be the only factor in the future of social security.

It was a point to refute your claim that the birthrate is insufficient for the future of social security.

If you ever wish to discuss facts about Social Security, please speak up. But now you are just fear-mongering. "Chicken Little, Chicken Little, The Sky is Falling."

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5277&sequence=0

 

[Don Roley]

It was not a suggestion that immigration would be the only factor in the future of social security.

It was a point to refute your claim that the birthrate is insufficient for the future of social security.

If you ever wish to discuss facts about Social Security, please speak up. But now you are just fear-mongering. "Chicken Little, Chicken Little, The Sky is Falling."

Again with the personal insults.

Immigration, birthrate, whatever and in whatever combination you want them in- any system that requires more people paying into it than take out can't last. That is just a simple fact. There are limits to how many people we can expand in this world.

 

[michaeledward]

What is the current status of the Social Security program?

 

[Don Roley]

What is the current status of the Social Security program?

Excuse me, this is about the future of the program. And I maintain that it needs to be fixed because the basic model is a flawed pyramid scheme.

 

[michaeledward]

Excuse me, this is about the future of the program. And I maintain that it needs to be fixed because the basic model is a flawed pyramid scheme.

If we are unable to determine where we are, it will be impossible to determine where we will be.


In 2004, the last year published,

Social Security Income = 657,718,000,000.00
Social Security Expenditures = 501,644,000,000.00

Currently, the Social Security Program is taking in more dollars than it is paying out.


Currently, Social Security is 1.7 Trillion Dollars (with a T) in the Black.



Name one other program of the federal government that is as well positioned?

 

[Don Roley]

If we are unable to determine where we are, it will be impossible to determine where we will be.

You can't be serious.

We only have to look at the basic structure of a system that requires more people paying in than taking out to see that it is unstable. We all know that the baby boomers are getting set to retire soon, and the entire world is experiencing a greying as people live longer and longer.

Any you honestly say that we can't look at anything but the present?

 

[michaeledward]

You can't be serious.

We only have to look at the basic structure of a system that requires more people paying in than taking out to see that it is unstable. We all know that the baby boomers are getting set to retire soon, and the entire world is experiencing a greying as people live longer and longer.

Any you honestly say that we can't look at anything but the present?

Are you going to address any of the questions I pose?

I did not say that we can't look at anything but the present. I said, if we can't agree on where we are, we can't even begin to talk about where we are going to be.

But, you don't want to have a serious discussion about this ... you want to spread fear and mis-information.

 

[Don Roley]

Are you going to address any of the questions I pose?

I did not say that we can't look at anything but the present. I said, if we can't agree on where we are, we can't even begin to talk about where we are going to be.

But, you don't want to have a serious discussion about this ... you want to spread fear and mis-information.

If you ask questions that matter, I may answer them. If you want to divert attention....

It does not matter that we are currently paying out more than we take in. Any system that requires more people paying in than taking our will collapse at some point rather spectacularly. We know about the baby boomers, decreases in immigration, longer life spans and everything else. Even if that was not the case, the basic system is itself assured of collapse. That is not fear mongering or mis-information. That is just a basic fact.