All the fuckers will do is, keep on RAISE TAXES, RAISE TAXES and RAISE TAXES
in order to tax the shit out of all the shit people.
All the people are completely INSANE .. no sane person would ever allow such a fraudulent system, to take away their rightful fruits of labour and give basically NOTHING IN RETURN
The masses of people have become a freakin cancer disease on this nation and the planet as a whole. I really hope the Social Security PONZI will go bankrupt very soon, what a laugh !!!!!!
How can any sane person support or defend a system which steals from your paycheck your entire working life and then pays you back at slightly more than minimum wage for the last few years of your life, IF you live long enough to qualify for it? The ugly truth is that Williams is CORRECT, and anyone younger than 50, probably won't receive 1 thin dime from this fraudulent ponzi scheme.
great speech. it's true. something has to be done in the short run. either the governments find alternative ways to found social security, or they start not taxing people for it. and let them save the money they want throughout their lives, so they can use it when they are old and cannot work
Mr. Walter E. Williams is stating what we have to do just to keep the government funded by stating by 2020 we have to cut 1/4 of the budget (not cuts in the rate of growth as Washington, D.C.'s CBO scores cuts today under baseline budgeting). He has not even addressed what must be done for us to reduce our growing national debt. We need to cut at least 1/3 of the budget beginning TODAY to begin paying off the debt!
This is nothing but lies and misdirection. All Social Security benefits paid today, come from payments into the system. The supposed 'unfunded liability' is the slush fund for Social Security that is there in case we need it. But we don't need it yet. And won't for almost 20 years, with no changes to the system.
Some dumb/selfish rich people hate Social Security because it costs them a couple bucks and they'll never need it. But the country needs it. The middle class needs it.
@przem23 What's the difference between Social Security and a good, inexpensive insurance policy? Nothing.
Social Security is an example of government working way better than private business -- that's what business hates about it. What if government created more programs like it? Business would look even worse.
@rs2013 I highly recommend this online e-book, 'the social security swindle' w w w greenjacketbooks(dot)com/Greenjacket_Books/The_Coming_Calamity_files/Social%20Security%20Swindle%207Feb10.pdf
w3w fixssnow.org lists all of the problems, and all of the possible solutions. It is no longer about the next generation. It is about us and how our parents will live in retirement. Put it off long enough, and you will get to pick which one of your inlaws comes to live with you.
Oh noes, I am paying so my dad can have a decent retirement regardless of what kind of job he had.
Taxes has always been balanced on the amount of people able to be taxed, aka have a income, run a business etc. Less people to tax equals a bigger tax burden on those that can be taxed. Just as bigger taxation on business could lower taxes for the majority.
Being a citizen of a country is not free.
So its great if a nation has programs that benefit you as well, like social security.
@Lobos222 The big issue is no one starts a business and works there ass off to just have it all taxed away. They do it to improve there standard of living and honestly people just like to feel better than there fellow man, people try different things to achieve this, one being economically, it's just in our nature.
If the government taxes us into equal par with everyone else, whats the point in working harder than everyone else and investing in a businesses. If I had more letters I'd elabora...
If you want infrastructure, safe areas, people that help you if your house starts burning, a army to prevent bordering nations from stealing everything and so on. You have to live in a society/nation. That is not free, so you are as a citizen gets taxed to fund these and other things that benefit all in some way.
If you want to make more money you work more because tax is deducted in a set % based on your yearly income. Make more, you end up with more as well.
@Lobos222 I have nothing against infrastructure and security. The security should only protect our rights and property. I have nothing against government funded education. I have nothing against charity. I have nothing against taxes. What I am against are when anything that the government does is targeted. I think anything government "run" is inefficient. You can live in a free society and be safe. So long as your Freedom doesn't impede one others it is fine.
@Lobos222 and if you honestly care about your dad, instead of having someone else pay for his care, why don't you pay for it. Want to help the poor start a charity, want a help the elderly open a home, want to change minds educate. You don't need the government to do all those things, people can do it. Security, regulators and the justice system are the only things that should be government run. Education, Infrastructure, SS (if we need it that badly) should be privately run, government funded.
I have a difficult time taking this lecture seriously, when Mr. Williams cannot even pronounce the name of Bernie Maddoff... Though I do agree with his point.
everyone thinks theyre going to live to a hundred, average age is in the 70's. Thats AVERAGE, you can die before even getting to retirement. There are loads of people who will spend their whole life working (40 years), take out social security till theyre in their 70's, then kick the bucket (10 years). Its a good, balanced system, the only people trying to destroy it are those that want to raid its coffers and force old people into debt.
@daPlumber702 "and itll work but not for long" or the last hundred years and in every modern country. go move to somalia if you like it that much.
this idiot thinks there is a hundred trillion dollars due today and that people live forever.
How about corporations contribute to the nation they make their fortunes from? you do know that most corporations pay no income tax right? you do know the budget was balanced until reagan gutted taxes on the rich and raised taxes on the working class,right?
@jwfcp yes, and that's why there were gas lines and rising food prices during the carter administration..
You should look up the facts bub. Reagan raised taxes three times during his time in office, only a small portion of one of those raises dealt with "the working class" the rest were aimed at businesses. Reagan wasn't perfect, but he was a hell of a lot better than carter and a world better than obama.
@daPlumber702 oh, so instead of dealing with scarcity of commodities by letting the free market take care of it by itself (rising costs make for a greater drive to reduce inefficiencies) you would rather be a filthy communist and use tax money to bribe industry to lower prices? see by giving welfare to the poor, they go out and spend it immediately, so you put the money into those industries best fit to provide for America. not so when you roll with some back room, "I know a guy" arrangement.
@jwfcp you really have an affinity for making shit up don't you? look up what reagan did regaurding taxes before you banter again you moron.
You've mixed two administrations that were decades apart.. fail.
by "giving money to the poor" (stealing money from everyon else is a good way to put it) you make the middle and upperclass poorer... and give the poor incentive to stay poor. Good job fuck nut.
@daPlumber702 yeah, everyone LOVES to be poor... idiot. you think its so great, go for it. newsflash, the poor have jobs too, theyre the best jobs they can get and the wages are still garbage, why? because reagan crushed workers rights. republicans are destroying America and democrats are too incompetent to stop them. whether or not employers give a crap, money needs to be flowing into the economy for it to function, if wages cant provide it, its gotta be taxed or the whole thing falls apart.
@daPlumber702 oh and its bush that spent all that money, they dined and dashed. do you understand that obama attempting to clean up the mess is a good thing, or do you have the mental capacity of a teenage girl at the mall with daddies credit card?
Democrats started Social Security and claimed participation in the program would be completely voluntary. Democrats then made it a non voluntary program. Democrats said participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual income into the Program. Democrats changed that to 7.65% on the first $90,000.
Democrats said that the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year. Democrats made it no longer tax deductible. Democrats said the money that participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' would not be mixed into the general operating fund. Democrats moved the social security money into the general operating fund and the money was spent.
Democrats said that the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Democrats changed that so that up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed. Which party was in charge and made these changes? Democrats!
Which party allowed Immigrants to move into this country, and at age 65, receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to illegal immigrants, even though they never paid a dime into it.
500 billion dollars a year for the pentagon to over throw 3rd world governments and take their oil, chase around goat herders that live in caves and people wonder where the money went? its in warring for profits. as i understand it the remnants of the 'holy roman empire' went bankrupt trying to expand its influence one more time. the u.s. is on the same track with the same ideologies. GFL next generation.
I only wish someone would dig up the video of Hillary Clinton in 2003 declaring "My husband has fixed Social Security and it's good until 2040".It was right after the US senate turned away President Bush's attempt to save it.
This country has turned into a full blown corporate dictatorship. SS will be 100% solvent until 2037. And 75% solvent until 2100. That is the most stable institution this country has. No bank or business is guaranteed to last until 2015, let alone 2037.
They claim we cannot let the tax cuts for the rich expire (though they did NOT create any jobs under Bush) and we cannot cut the $700 Billion Defense budget, because that would mean hating the troops (what?) But SS? Oh, we can get rid of that
Who told you SS was solvent until 2037, and 75% solvent until 2100? Obama? that's the funniest thing I've heard all day. And Obamacare won't raise health-care costs either, right? And we need to keep spending more money that we don't have to get out of debt, right?
Did it ever occur to you that your politicians will tell you whatever you want to hear to keep them in power, and then they hope you never get out a $5 calculator.
@docgambee Of course Obamacare will raise health care costs dumbass. There was not public option, which is the only thing that would lower health care costs. Which is why the health insurance companies and the media they own fought so hard against it.
Again, have you ever taken math? Apparently not. History? Doubtful. Socialized health care has been a MISERABLE failure in every country it's been tried from Canada to Europe. I lived in France, Belgium, and Germany so please don't tell me how great it is.
If Obamacare was so great, how come our politicians don't want it for themselves? How come it had to be drawn up behind closed doors? Why does it need 10 years of taxes to pay for the first 6 years of service?
@docgambee HAHAHAHAHAHA yeah terrible terrible health care. So terrible that when you say the words "American health care" people in Canada and Europe start laughing.
You could not force a Canadian or a European to trade health care systems with you if you put a gun to their heads.
Stop being a brain dead zombie and falling for the propaganda they feed you with.
Put away your teleprompter bro. Have you ever lived outside of your trailer park? Ever lived in another country and had to go see a doctor? Do you even know a single European or Canadian? I have business contacts in 5 different European countries. My wife's family lived for 30 years in Alberta, one of the most prosperous provinces in Canada. But I'm sure you know more than they do about how "wonderful" their own health care is, right?
And you're aware of the fact that the Canadian Prime Minister recently said that their health-care system is about to "implode". You know, my mathematically-challenged friend, there's a reason taxes are 40-50% in Canada. Here's a hint: it's not going to their military.
Tell you what, send me your address, and I'll ship you a Casio Calculator and a World History Textbook on my dime. Please. Use them before you're old enough to vote.
@docgambee hahaha the only country imploading is USA.
USA has the most expensive health care system by far.
The most inefficient also (20% administrative costs, in Japan: 2%, in Canada: 6%)
700,000 people go bankrupt in USA every year because of health care costs. Nobody has ever gone bankrupt because of health care costs in canada or europe.
And thousands die in USA cuz they can't afford your scam of a health care system.
The US is imploding because the liberal idiots who run this country are trying to copy their socialist neighbors.
Chew on this Einstein: in my home state, the govt is already involved in health-care in the form of mandates. 24 of them. These FED MANDATES raise the premiums by 30-51%. So instead of paying $400-$450/month to take care of my family of 5, I have to pay $800+. All because of GOVT MANDATES for services I don't need or want.
Brainchild, the US has expensive health care because the govt is already involved.
Only complete idiots would agree that MORE govt intervention is needed. The govt needs to stop protecting their buddies in insurance with bailouts and let them sink or swim on the strength of their product. This is basic Markets 101. If a company knows they get no govt bailouts, that they have to put out a competitive product at a competitive price or else lose business to their competitors, they will
@docgambee Listen retard, USA is the only country in the world that has a private health insurance system. And it is the MOST expensive in the world by far.
I know you people have had your brain replaced with Faux News so you can't think. But there really is nothing to think about here. The facts are in front of you as clear as day.
Funny how 85% of Canadians support their gov. run health care system. Even conservatives. Because they know how terrible it is in America
Schmuck, you don't get it do you? You failed math at UCLA so you can't compute the fact that govt has already DOUBLED my health care costs due to mandates. You think the "private" insurance companies have a choice on these mandates? You think they should work for free? You think I have a choice on them?
And please shut your cake hole about how many Canadians "love" their healthcare when you've never lived there or had to use it. You're just another "enlightened" idiot who needs to read a book.
@docgambee No, what doubled your health care costs is the fact that health insurance companies need to make higher profits every single quarter. Meaning: they will lower the number of people who recieve health care, and raise premiums on everyone else.
They will do this forever until it will be so bad that people will start a revolution against the health insurance companies.
And Veterans Affaris is already the #1 ranked health care system in USA. It is also a total gov. run system.
@docgambee And you're just another idiot who has been brainwashed by Faux Noise and the greedy special interests that rob you blind.
They want sheep like you to think that health care is terrible in Canada and any government intervention anywhere is terrible, because that way they can rob you blind like the sucker that you are.
And yes, 85% of Canadians support their system. Look it up. I know it makes your brainwashed little mind want to expload. LOL
Your administrative costs of Canada are complete B.S., but nice try.
While it may appear that no one is going bankrupt directly because of health care in Europe, its because the govt is paying for it. I bet there are thousands of people going bankrupt due to 40-50% taxes on their income to pay for this "free" health care.
You just don't get basic math do you? That's probably why you like all the freebies the govt is throwing at you. You really think it's free.
@docgambee Umm no those administrative costs are not total BS. From Japan to Europe to Canada they are about 2-8%. Varries from country to country a bit, but point is in USA they are 20%, 10 times more than in Japan.
My math skills? I have a masters degree in Architecture and my own firm in Germany. I make more money in 6 months than you make in 3 years. Trust me on that you fucking brain dead retard.
Good. Please go back to Germany. And consider the fact that a reason why admin costs in US are so high is because they have to deal with these federal mandates, etc., not to mention the fact that the US population is about 10 times that of Canada. Congrats on your math skills. Use them. I have a Doctorate in Medicine & Chiropractic, so I'll just smile at your income claim. I also know a little more about HC than you because I have to live it. Trust me on that my liberal loser friend.
@docgambee Umm no the reason admin costs are so high is because US does not have a gov. run system, meaning all the money is not spent on health care, but on bull shit like TV ads for insurance companies ETC.
Look, I know people like you have been programmed to support being robbed blind, and you sheep believe that anything else is communism. I understand that.
I just think it is hilarious. LMAO. Oh, and the rest of the world agrees. Everyones thinks conservative americans are retarded
@docgambee Hey man, you want to have the biggest joke of a health care system in the world, go ahead. And the nurse association of America supports a government run system, because they are nurses, the only people in this system who really care about the people.
You're fucking retarded. Watch your health care costs double again, and again, and again...Until every American goes bankrupt.
@docgambee You know what? I really don't care anymore. I want to live in Germany. It is much better here: economy, quality of life, roads, health care, you name it.
America will be destroyed because any country is only as strong as its middle class, and conservative policies are all about giving more to the billionaires/wall street at the expense of the middle class.
Trickle down? It does work. Only instead of trickle, it is a stream. And instead of money, it is piss.
@normalais >>> So you're just going to disregard everything this man said in the video and stick to your liberal ideology regardless of its known consequences huh?
@TommyWaters I don't agree with what the man said and I don't have an ideology. I believe both communism and capitalism are disasters. The only system that works is social democracy: which means a capitalist system that is reformed according to our ethics and ideals as a society. Instead of this free for all middle class destroying wall street mafia we have now. It is somewhere between capitalism and socialism, bits of both, but no certain ideology.
@normalais >>> If you knew history and understood how many more people would live in poverty and how much lower the standard of life for people in this country and elsewhere if capitalism wasn't adopted then you wouldn't call it a disaster. Where are your examples of so-called social democracy working? What are the ethics and ideals of society? Society consists of a multitude of individuals with their own ethics and ideals.
@normalais >>>> It's not desirable that an attempt at forming an economic system on "society's ethics and ideals" be made. Precisely because there would not be enough consesus, it would be grossly inefficient and unproductive therefore drastically lowering the standard of life, and lastly it would breed corruption. Social democracy is just another name for socialism because that is exactly what it would become in practice. It would force individuals to submit to the collective.
@TommyWaters Nope. Social Democracy works very well. I know you zombies are programmed to believe anything other than letting Wall Street run around like a dog with rabbies is "socialism", but that's only because you're a bunch of zombies.
Unproductive? Lowering the standard of life? Corruption? Those things right now are the order of the day after 30 years of Reaganomics.
@normalais >>> Still no examples of how social democracy works very well. Wall Street and other businesses run amuck have been able to wreak so much havoc largely because of collaboration with the government. The government has written some laws that limited competition, some laws that created an situation where businesses could make their dealings and transactions with consumers more ambiguous, and laws that allowed the few things that should be regulated to go unregulated. I already
@normalais >>> explained why social democracy will be socialism in practice. Zombies don't provide reason. Instead they make proclamations like the ones you continue to make without explanation or example... "the only system that works is social democracy," or "social democracy works very well."
@normalais Iceland was at the top of that list 5-6 years ago. what happened to them? Bankruptcy... I would also like to tell you that All of the countries above with exception of Denmark have a high debt to gdp and a decreasing tax base all the while transfer payments are increasing more and more.
Also I would point out that Reagan was more of a Keynesian than most people would admit. I.e decreasing taxes and increasing government spending (war).
Same old tiresome arguments against the most successful system in the history of the world. Politics is about who gets to collect what money from whom and for what purpose. If you are not giving money to SSI on the relatively secure gamble that it will be there when you need it, provided you have the brains and the genes to live long enough, then to whom will you be giving your money? What we are seeing right now is that Corporations, the banks, and the power elite will be taking your money.
"Social Security will pay out more this year than it gets in payroll taxes, marking the first time since the program will be in the red since it was overhauled in 1983, according to the annual authoritative report released Thursday by the program's actuary." - The Washington Times Thursday August 5, 2010
There's nothing wrong with that unless it's involuntary, which SS is. There are many good things in this life that people should do, but it does not follow that they should be compelled to do said things.
Professor Williams has it right. SS is exactly like a Ponzi scheme. The worst thing about it, is that not only is the new money that's put into it used to pay the old members of the scheme, but that any surplus in the new money coming in has been wasted, not saved, blown by Congress on wasteful other spending. Bottom line: it's a Ponzi scheme in the hands of spendthrifts who can't be trusted with all that money!
hello folks get ready to give your social security back to the government. All that money you paid in the past 50 years will be used for bankrolling the huge immigration population that will need funding baby boomers you are the perfect scape goats.
A hundred trillion? Who's got all that money these days? Hmmm - the banks? Big bonuses, million dollar salaries... great profits even in health care industry. And the oil industry. Big Pharma. Maybe they could help us???
Not sure what big banks, big oil, and big pharma have to do with the ponzi scheme that is SS. What exactly is the connection, big bodryn, other than SS is in the hole and those industries have money?
I am not saying Social Security checks will stop completely. What will probably happen is when all the Baby Boomers are retired, the government will have to vastly increase SS taxes while greatly increasing the retirement age at the same time. They have already raised the retirement age from 65 to 67 for young people. That age will probably increase to 77, and taxes with go from 12.4% to over 25%. I'm not sure if the younger generation will go for that.
Oh, I wish they would stop immediately. So long as the SS system has to be supported on my back, I hope the system fails so I won't be compelled to donate anymore. If instead I could just voluntarily opt out, then I would have no vested interest in SS' success or failure.
oterj: You remind me of one of the blind men who was asked to describe an elephant, so he felt its side and described it as a wall. It takes a smarter person to realize that no one person sees the whole picture. The U.S. is a country of diversity: diversity of thought, of ideology, of faith, and lots more. Learn to live with it, and you'll be a true American. Meanwhile, a little empathy for others wouldn't hurt.
What does any of that have to do with a coercive retirement/insurance/welfare or whatever system you want to call it? Whether or not I see the whole picture is irrelevant. Tell me, is SS retirement, insurance, or welfare? If retirement, why can't people choose where to invest their retirement? If insurance, why do rich people get benefits? If welfare, why not just simplify the system and only give benefits for the poor? SS cannot be justified with out of place references to America's diversity.
@oterj0 I'm afraid that trying to reason this out with you is rather like trying to explain our system of government to a space alien. Meanwhile, since you obviously care more about yourself than for others, and do not accept the current U.S. government system, you maybe should try your luck in another country that agrees more with what you want, if you can find such a place.
That you won't discuss the issue suggests you cannot defend the program. It's not about me or you, it's about anyone else who may be reading the posts. You're telling them that you can't defend your position.
Why is it obvious I don't care about others? Because I don't support legalized ponzi schemes? Why don't you leave the country? This is a conservative country, which is pretty much unique in the western world. You have many options for socialist countries, why don't you move there?
@oterj0 What you call socialist countries are actually about midway between true socialism, and laissez faire capitalism. The deregulation of banks and finance has brought the WORLD to the brink of total economic collapse. THEY were the ones with the Ponzi schemes. And if AIG had not been propped up, as perhaps the largest insurer in the world, we'd probably be in full scale depression right now. And I don't intend to move, because I served my country. How about you???
"The deregulation of banks and finance has brought the WORLD to the brink of total economic collapse".
How about you be just a little more vague? "Deregulation" is all you've got? Care to elaborate what precisely?
I don't intend to move either. I intend to do everything in my power to see SS fail unless I'm allowed to opt out of the system. Perhaps it would be in both our best interests if SS contained an opt out provision. Would you support such an idea? Why or why not?
@oterj0 I don't have the time or space to educate you about how default swaps and other phony profit schemes have put the world on thin ice financially. Financial institutions needed continued regulation to avoid all this, and during the Reagan years, regulations began being eroded.
Social security: If it were optional, lots of young people would opt out so they can buy more gadgets, etc., and then in penniless old age, the government would have to come in and bail them out anyway.
This is the tried and true argument about the recession, that financial derivatives caused the collapse. However, it just doesn't make sense that CDS, which are zero sum derivatives, would cause the economy to collapse. It's a wager between two willing parties where one wins and the other loses, with NO NET CHANGE TO THE ECONOMY. If in the aggregate the economy has the same money, how do CDS cause a collapse?
If people really would leave SS in droves given the option, what does that say about the program? Doesn't it imply that people do not view it as valuable? Surely people can do critical thinking and proper value the time value of money as well as the need for money in the future to make the best decision for themselves. If not, does our coddling them help them learn how? Unlikely.
@oterj0 Most everybody I know reaching retirement age seems to look forward to getting social security. You also have to remember that private companies often go out of business if not bankrupt and there goes many retirement accounts. Time value of money is fine, but what if you invested your money in a Ponzi scheme? Or a company whose stock value fell? Too risky.
@bodryn You must also remember that SS is not only for retirement, it is also disability insurance, if your health fails before retirement. Hard to get an insurance policy to do all that you want it to do, and hope it is a solid company. I thought Montgomery Ward was solid. Lots of companies have gone away...
I guess I addressed the disability issue above, but the only other thing I'd add is that all this still doesn't answer why we should compel people to participate. Your argument about guessing which insurance companies are solid is an argument for a govt program, but not an argument for a MANDATORY govt program. There is no reason to oppose an opt out; it's just a fundamental disagreement. There are lots of things people should do, but I'm not so arrogant as to force them to do so by govt fiat.
@oterj0 The reason people are compelled to participate is that for this type of program to work, there has to be a universal base to draw upon. The alternative is for politicos over time to chisel away at the safety net until it dwindles away into little or nothing. It really ought to be paid for by taxes, but it wasn't. Not a good way, I'd say. Forcing people to buy from a corrupt private insurance company, wondering whether they will pay out properly.
Yes, as stated above, this is the argument for a compulsory system, just not an argument for a GOVT-RUN compulsory system. Govt is just as corrupt as private companies, it's just that govt can force you to buy their product by law, whereas private companies can't. Even if I accept your argument that a mandated annuity makes sense, the idea that it must be run by corrupt govt officials who can throw you in jail if you don't abide by their rules makes absolutely no sense.
@oterj0 To put it another way, without everybody participating, there would be less funds to draw upon. I suppose what it is, is forcing people to be responsible for their fellow man, which they should be anyway. Think of places like Calcutta, etc., beggars everywhere you look. We try for a better world, not a worse one. The 19th century proves conservatism is morally bankrupt.
This is where I believe the liberal guilty conscience comes into play. Statistically speaking (yes, I know the stats on US charitable donations), I am way more generous with my charitable giving than you and yet you accuse me of greed. That's what people would generally call a guilty conscience. You know how cheap you are, so you want govt to give on your behalf so you can feel better. Any resistance means more guilt for you, thus you project onto political opponents.
@oterj0 Glad to hear you are so generous. You don't come across as a generous person, but coulda fooled me. I have sacrificed plenty in my life for the good of others though it's none of your business. I also profited quite nicely when Eisenhower put the NDEA student loans into place, and LBJ restored many veterans education benefits. Leveled the playing field. Neocons have incessantly chiseled away at veterans benefits including health care.
I get your point, and I do believe in diversification, but it doesn't follow that because you think it's good therefore everyone should be compelled to do so. If we must compel people to buy an annuity, why must it be the govt's annuity? We require people buy auto insurance and there aren't any state run auto insurance companies. Why not require a min value annuity and disability insurance be purchase from whomever? SS is not about retirement or insurance, it's about creating govt dependents.
@oterj0 Again I repeat: private annuities may or may not exist depending on the management. Many corporations have disappeared in recent decades. Who can predict which? I prefer the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. As for govt dependents, would you prefer that the elderly exist on private donations? There have not been stable private career paths for years now in the U.S. That all changed after Reagan's union-busting policies. Unions made 40 hour weeks the norm.
@oterj0@oterj0 Again I repeat: private annuities may or may not exist depending on the management. Many corporations have disappeared in recent decades. Who can predict which? I prefer the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. As for govt dependents, would you prefer that the elderly exist on private donations? There have not been stable private career paths for years now in the U.S. That all changed after Reagan's union-busting policies. Unions made 40 hour weeks the norm.
This debate will be over when all the Baby Boomers are retired and demanding their checks. There will be no way to pay them, even if SS taxes are doubled or tripled. If I'm wrong, 20 years from now I'll gladly eat crow(but I'm not wrong).
oterj0: You are obviously too immature to realize that some people are motivated by common decency, unlike you who seem to be all about MONEY. FDR was well liked in his time because he was trying his best to be DECENT to the people. People cried when he died. I'm getting SS now, thanks to FDR. It's not an investment; It is insurance.
Where do I start. People being motivated by decency is good, but is it decency if the govt makes you do it? You can't impose morality by govt fiat, so SS is by definition not moral. I donate >10% of my money to charitable causes and I sleep very well at night. I'm sorry you're a miser and you need govt to give to charity on your behalf so you can feel better about yourself.
People liked FDR, because he gave them free crap by stealing from future generations. I like people who give me free stuff, even if it's ultimately bad for the country. Imagine that, people are motivated by self preservation.
If SS is insurance, then why isn't the premium paid (FICA tax) proportional to probability of insured incident (poverty in retirement) occurring? That's insurance. Your insurance argument would imply poor people pay the largest premiums, whereas in reality they don't.
@oterj0 I think since you were a kid, you must never have had to deal with any poverty issues personally. You seem to know all the bullet points, but seem to lack personal knowledge.
@oterj0 You conveniently fail to mention the caps on SS for those making very high income. Those with very high incomes pay even smaller percentages of their income into SS.
No, it just wasn't relevant. What you forgot is the cap on benefits. Remember, SS is an EARNED benefit, so the more you pay, the more you get. No sense in rich people getting $10,000+/mo SS checks in retirement, hence the cap.
The only reason raising the cap helps solvency is because of the redistributive nature of benefits calculations. I could go on about bend points and rates, but that'd be too boring and more than 500 characters.
Is Social Security is such a great system, why are people coerced to join it? Are people too dumb to know what a good deal is? Of course not. It is forced because no sane young person would voluntarily pay into it.
Goodness, I could only imagine 12.4% of my income wisely invested and gaining compound interest for 50-60 years.
Yeah, you really have to wonder how good of a deal something is when you have to be forced to do it. I can't stand hearing the logical fallacies SS supporters present as arguments for the system. It's in your best interest (really, why am I coerced?), it's insurance (why do rich people get benefits, they don't need to collect poverty insurance), it's the only money some people get in retirement (yeah, after you took 12.4% of their money for 35 years).
@oterj0 Readers: I can't imagine anybody would ever have talked this way 50 years ago, when companies were small, media was owned by MANY companies, and many diverse opinions prevailed. The reason SS taxes are coerced is that people by nature do not tithe. Most people are too selfish for that, so taxes come in to help people out - preferably you give them a hand up, rather than a hand out. Check out the movie Blind Side. Sets a great example!
Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to my opinion, or that my opinion is simply a product of your corporate media theory? If the former, sorry the US isn't for you...try Russia. If the latter, then praytell, which pundit did I take my idea from? I don't like the talking heads, nor do I look to them for ideas. I use the old brain to come up with original ideas, which a voluntary opt largely is. I'm sure someone's thought of it, but certainly no one's proposed it in recent memory.
@oterj0 FYI: I served my country, I'm sticking around. Would like to make it better, though. As far as your brain, it just may be malfunctioning. How would you know? Of course Russia is a recovering basket case and the media there, free for a few months, is free no longer.
By the way, I most certainly do tithe. If you really want to get into the demographics of who donates to charity and who doesn't, I'd welcome that discussion. Do you care to plot histograms of % of income donated to charity by political affiliation? You know exactly what that'll look like; bimodal distribution, with Republicans giving more than Democrats. Again, liberal guilt is the reason SS exists, not conservative greed.
Yes. Jesus told the rich guy to sell everything he had and give to the poor to inherit the kingdom of heaven. He didn't like the answer. Notice that Jesus didn't say sell everything you have and give to the poor or I'll throw you in jail for tax evasion. Coerced morality is no morality at all; God most certainly recognized this by giving humans free choice.
The money SS does not go into one or a few peoples bank accounts. It is intended to be spread out to older or disadvantaged people. Also the word "scheme" implies secrecy. The problems and system workings of SS is not really a secret.
Is that what you hang your hat on? SS isn't a ponzi scheme because it has a "good" purpose, spreading wealth to older and disadvantaged people for vote buying...er, I mean out of compassion? The mechanism by which the system works, pay as you go, is textbook definition of a Ponzi scheme. Call it Ponzi scheme, paygo, dog, or any other word (words are arbitrary), but the principle is the same, that is the same as Madoff's scam.
@oterj0 in a word, yes. And if Roosevelt is still buying votes, he's wasting his time don't you think? SS has been in place under both parties both parties. So was Bush buying votes? Is it just completely out of the question that SS helps people?
SS has been in place under both parties, because entitlements are impossible to eliminate once created. FDR wasnt just buying votes for him, he bought votes for all Dems for generations. Do you really think Reps reap the re-election benefits of SS? We're the ones trying to remove that noose from our necks. SS is a transfer program, it's a zero sum game. If some people win out, it's because some others got to be the losers. Don't you get that?
► @oterj0 You're gonna remove the SS noose from your neck and retire with what? Enron common stock? AIG? Bear Stearns? Morgan Stanley? THEY conned you, not the SSA. Do you want out for good, no ifs ands, or buts? You and everyone else? BTW, if SS is a Ponzi scheme then so is the Army. Any institution you name runs on a revenue stream, and the SS revenue stream is legit. Let's keep it that way
401k, cash, commodities, and business income. An extra 12.4% of my income would go a long way to help beef up any of those, particularly since the system will have exhausted the trust fund by the time I can retire. I know I'll be getting nothing from SS, I just want to opt out now and give up all my owed benefits. I think opt out should be voluntary, should be for good, and should require giving up all owed benefits. Would you be okay with that?
I haven't really followed any particular pundit for quite some time. I like to think that my ideology is influenced by many, but defined by none. My favorite was Larry Elder, a libertarian talk show host in LA. I haven't heard boo from him since I left CA, so I'm not sure how big he is anymore. I also liked listening to the socialists when I was still in college. Know thine enemy, right?
Probably living off unemployment and growing hydroponic pot in the basement. Who knows what losers do when they realize they have to pay their own way.
@oterj0 Yep, thought so. It's all about oterj0, and to heck with anybody else. That me first mentality, that recrudesced during the Reagan years, and all this touting of Ayn Rand, etc. This is a product of the right wing buying out nearly all the media in the U.S., and a lot of young people getting one side, and not knowing how good it was in America 50 years ago before all this crap started. This is the face of America in decline.
I don't know what you're replying to here. It's not about you or I, it's about logic and corporate well-being, but you keep making it about me, because you can't win the argument, so you figure if you can debase me, you win by default. Again, all I argued from the beginning was voluntary opt outs allow 1) free choice and 2) make SS stronger as people who voluntarily opt out forego all owed benefits. Why do you insist on turning this into a referendum on my supposed greed?
If the Army runs its pension system like SS, then yes, it's pension is a ponzi scheme, otherwise, this comment doesn't make sense.
No company could get away with funding a pension like SS is funded. Private companies have to have their pension liabilities 100% funded. If they drop below 80%, they generally have to take drastic measures to get it back up. SS' liabilities are completely unfunded, because it's pay as you go. If a company did what SS does, its executives would be in jail.
@oterj0 ► The Army and its pension are pay as you go, funded by an ongoing revenue stream, and an unwavering commitment to the revenue. Army retirees get their money out of working peoples paychecks. Now is that a Ponzi scheme? What happens to corporate pension funds in Chapter 11? That's where the commitment disappears
Are you trying to justify a ponzi scheme by arguing that pensions can be liquidated in bankruptcy? How do two wrongs make a right?? Besides, so long as you don't work for the company, your money isn't at risk. I however, have 12.4% of my earnings forcibly removed from my paycheck for a ponzi scheme I have no interest in participating in.
"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned."
That's my definition and it sounds a whole lot like pay as you go, exception ponzi schemes are typically funded through deception, whereas SS is funded via coercion.
Actually no. Your grandkid's kindergarten teacher gets paid from the local citizens who benefit from her work. Certainly it would be better if schools were privately funded and people who directly benefited paid rather than coercive taxes, but it's still getting paid for work. Pay as you go is a wealth transfer program of no value other than creating govt dependents.
@oterj0 ► Am I trying to justify a ponzi scheme by arguing that pensions can be liquidated in bankruptcy?
No, not at all. I just see a lot of reverence for Corporate operations, and couldn't help taking a shot at it. When Corprations go into Chapter 11 proceedings they take as many assets as they can off the table as they can so investors can be paid before employees. They'll typically do anything to keep the dough upstairs where they think it rightfully belongs
@oterj0 Oterj's entire philosophy seems anti-American. He might as well know that trying to eliminate social security is a political dead end. Neocons keep saying SS is going bankrupt. Yet they never talk about raising the caps for people with large incomes!
As for deregulation, check out what evading regulation does to coal mines!
Oh, free choice is anti-American...that's good to know, because I had previously thought it was the essence of Americanism. Thanks for correcting me (tongue in cheek). What a foolish statement on your part.
I'm not trying to eliminate SS, I'm suggesting a voluntary opt out allows people the choice to participate or not and it strengthens SS, because people who opt out lose all owed benefits.
@oterj0 Don't you get that in the wealthiest thirty-plus industrialized countries, people pay taxes? You must think of yourself as a self-made successful man but with a noose of responsibility around your neck. In the current US environment there are some BIG losers. People doing work deemed necessary by those in charge, yet ending up bankrupt, many for lack of health care, and/or layoffs.
Just not true. Why is it that disagreeing with how some govt program operates is akin to being selfish and greedy in your mind? Is there no room for dissent? Why not debate the topic rather than demonize the person?
Remember, SS is an EARNED benefit, it is social insurance, not welfare. If you want it to be welfare, fine, let's tax only rich people, give benefits to only poor people and call a spade a spade. That would surely be the end of SS, which is precisely what this SS name game is all about, creating a leviathan. All I suggested was a voluntary opt out that would actually improve SS solvency by reducing future liabilities.
Ummm... Madoff didn't pay anybody back. It didn't matter if they were early or late investors. How do you think he accumulated 50 BILLION DOLLARS? What he did could best be described as a pyramid scheme. Where the primary investors each recruit more investors, who recruit more investors who recruit more investors... until the whole investment becomes so impersonal that the person in charge of all the money bails on everybody else, which they don't realize until it's too late. A pyramid scheme...
Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. People who enter Ponzi schemes do it voluntarily. Social Security is required by law. Therefore, it's considered to be extortion.
I stand by my comments. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. The definition of which which is paying off older investors with new investors money until the scheme can no longer function. The only reason Social Security has made it this far is because tens of millions of Baby Boomers paid into the system, but once they retire in mass, the scheme will fall apart. The only other option is tripling the younger generation's taxes and telling them they can't retire until they're 85.
@willgarrow You are so right... FDR did more to set this country on a downhill slide than any other President with Social Insecurity. And Obamacare will absolutely break the back of America unless it is repealed in the next congress. Less than 4 months until the 2nd Revolution. Let's make Nov. 2, 2010 the day we save America!
@ProudConservative2 Canada has a better health care system and does it cheaper than the US even now before the new health care system takes effect. Yet Canada is recovering from the recession better than most countries. They've had really good health care for decades! Smarten up!
Healthcare and the recession have nothing to do with one another. If the ends justify the means, then I think we should create the matrix and force people to live in little pods full of goo. If we did that, society would be much more peaceful and orderly...
If Canada's healthcare system is better than America's, does that really justify the coercive nature of it?
@ProudConservative2 No, USA will crash, because of conservatism. USA is on the verge of bankrupcy, but not Canada or Germany, that have Universal health care.
They are ROBBING us blind. Social Security is next. They're taking OUR MONEY and laughing all the way to the bank, while dumb inbred hillbillies like you are smiling because you're so blinded by this ideology propaganda
Did you ever take math or history? You think Canada's health care system is solvent? LMAO. Canada's own Prime Minister recently said it's "on the verge of imploding". My wife's entire family is all from there, and moved to the U.S. for a reason. It's BANKRUPT.
Please get a clue before repeating liberal soundbites.
@willgarrow of course it is. the SCOTUS declared in Flemming vs Nestor in 1960 that the US gov't HAS NO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION to give workers benefits. which is why they are able to do things like raise the contribution levels as well as the age upon which you can receive benefits simply by getting the votes in congress. Also there is NO TRUST FUND, in '39 the gov't officially made it a pay-go system (your contributions don't go to a fund instead to other workers)
The only reason Social Security has made it this far is because tens of millions of Baby Boomers have been paying into it. Now they are all getting ready to retire and draw from it. Just a tiny bit of common sense shows this is a train wreck in the very near future.
@TejanoChimbo That the programs will ultimately go bankrupt is clear from the trustees' reports. On pages 201 and 202 of the Medicare report, you will find the conclusive arithmetic: over the next 75 years, Social Security and Medicare will cost an estimated $103.2 trillion, while dedicated taxes and premiums will total only $57.4 trillion. The gap is $45.8 trillion. (All figures are expressed in &
All the fuckers will do is, keep on RAISE TAXES, RAISE TAXES and RAISE TAXES
in order to tax the shit out of all the shit people.
All the people are completely INSANE .. no sane person would ever allow such a fraudulent system, to take away their rightful fruits of labour and give basically NOTHING IN RETURN
The masses of people have become a freakin cancer disease on this nation and the planet as a whole. I really hope the Social Security PONZI will go bankrupt very soon, what a laugh !!!!!!
tycoonfortune 1 month ago
We should get Bernie Madoff to run Social Security.
damiaxxx 1 month ago
How can any sane person support or defend a system which steals from your paycheck your entire working life and then pays you back at slightly more than minimum wage for the last few years of your life, IF you live long enough to qualify for it? The ugly truth is that Williams is CORRECT, and anyone younger than 50, probably won't receive 1 thin dime from this fraudulent ponzi scheme.
432ps1 1 month ago
great speech. it's true. something has to be done in the short run. either the governments find alternative ways to found social security, or they start not taxing people for it. and let them save the money they want throughout their lives, so they can use it when they are old and cannot work
diogotomediogo 3 months ago in playlist Mais vídeos de LibertyPen
Mr. Walter E. Williams is stating what we have to do just to keep the government funded by stating by 2020 we have to cut 1/4 of the budget (not cuts in the rate of growth as Washington, D.C.'s CBO scores cuts today under baseline budgeting). He has not even addressed what must be done for us to reduce our growing national debt. We need to cut at least 1/3 of the budget beginning TODAY to begin paying off the debt!
MrConservative608 6 months ago
Social Security money stolen by government: ppjg.wordpress(dot)com/2010/07/16/social-security-money-stolen-by-government/
przem23 6 months ago
This is nothing but lies and misdirection. All Social Security benefits paid today, come from payments into the system. The supposed 'unfunded liability' is the slush fund for Social Security that is there in case we need it. But we don't need it yet. And won't for almost 20 years, with no changes to the system.
Some dumb/selfish rich people hate Social Security because it costs them a couple bucks and they'll never need it. But the country needs it. The middle class needs it.
rs2013 7 months ago
what's the difference between a ponzi scheme and social security? ,................ you don't have to participate in a ponzi scheme!
przem23 7 months ago
@przem23 A ponzi sheme, ala Madoff, skims the majority of the funds for the operator. That's the difference.
Social Security is one of the most efficient insurance systems ever created.
The guys that put this video together are crooks and liars, pure and simple.
rs2013 7 months ago
Comment removed
przem23 7 months ago
@rs2013 Milton Friedman - The Social Security Myth watch?v=rCdgv7n9xCY
przem23 7 months ago
@przem23 What's the difference between Social Security and a good, inexpensive insurance policy? Nothing.
Social Security is an example of government working way better than private business -- that's what business hates about it. What if government created more programs like it? Business would look even worse.
rs2013 7 months ago
@rs2013 I highly recommend this online e-book, 'the social security swindle' w w w greenjacketbooks(dot)com/Greenjacket_Books/The_Coming_Calamity_files/Social%20Security%20Swindle%207Feb10.pdf
przem23 7 months ago
w3w fixssnow.org lists all of the problems, and all of the possible solutions. It is no longer about the next generation. It is about us and how our parents will live in retirement. Put it off long enough, and you will get to pick which one of your inlaws comes to live with you.
joetheeconomist 8 months ago
Oh noes, I am paying so my dad can have a decent retirement regardless of what kind of job he had.
Taxes has always been balanced on the amount of people able to be taxed, aka have a income, run a business etc. Less people to tax equals a bigger tax burden on those that can be taxed. Just as bigger taxation on business could lower taxes for the majority.
Being a citizen of a country is not free.
So its great if a nation has programs that benefit you as well, like social security.
Lobos222 9 months ago
@Lobos222 - "Just as bigger taxation on business could lower taxes for the majority."
And result in those same businesses passing the tax down to consumers and resulting in an overall lower standard of living.
"So its great if a nation has programs that benefit you as well, like social security."
And even better if you can put that same money into a 401(k) instead.
HexTest 9 months ago
@Lobos222 The big issue is no one starts a business and works there ass off to just have it all taxed away. They do it to improve there standard of living and honestly people just like to feel better than there fellow man, people try different things to achieve this, one being economically, it's just in our nature.
If the government taxes us into equal par with everyone else, whats the point in working harder than everyone else and investing in a businesses. If I had more letters I'd elabora...
ShamanMcLamie 7 months ago
@ShamanMcLamie
Its very simple.
If you want infrastructure, safe areas, people that help you if your house starts burning, a army to prevent bordering nations from stealing everything and so on. You have to live in a society/nation. That is not free, so you are as a citizen gets taxed to fund these and other things that benefit all in some way.
If you want to make more money you work more because tax is deducted in a set % based on your yearly income. Make more, you end up with more as well.
Lobos222 7 months ago
@Lobos222 I have nothing against infrastructure and security. The security should only protect our rights and property. I have nothing against government funded education. I have nothing against charity. I have nothing against taxes. What I am against are when anything that the government does is targeted. I think anything government "run" is inefficient. You can live in a free society and be safe. So long as your Freedom doesn't impede one others it is fine.
ShamanMcLamie 6 months ago
@Lobos222 and if you honestly care about your dad, instead of having someone else pay for his care, why don't you pay for it. Want to help the poor start a charity, want a help the elderly open a home, want to change minds educate. You don't need the government to do all those things, people can do it. Security, regulators and the justice system are the only things that should be government run. Education, Infrastructure, SS (if we need it that badly) should be privately run, government funded.
ShamanMcLamie 6 months ago
I have a difficult time taking this lecture seriously, when Mr. Williams cannot even pronounce the name of Bernie Maddoff... Though I do agree with his point.
hddnwrd 11 months ago
everyone thinks theyre going to live to a hundred, average age is in the 70's. Thats AVERAGE, you can die before even getting to retirement. There are loads of people who will spend their whole life working (40 years), take out social security till theyre in their 70's, then kick the bucket (10 years). Its a good, balanced system, the only people trying to destroy it are those that want to raid its coffers and force old people into debt.
jwfcp 11 months ago
@jwfcp did you watch the video? you know you had to take it off mute right?
daPlumber702 11 months ago
@daPlumber702 "and itll work but not for long" or the last hundred years and in every modern country. go move to somalia if you like it that much.
this idiot thinks there is a hundred trillion dollars due today and that people live forever.
How about corporations contribute to the nation they make their fortunes from? you do know that most corporations pay no income tax right? you do know the budget was balanced until reagan gutted taxes on the rich and raised taxes on the working class,right?
jwfcp 11 months ago
@jwfcp yes, and that's why there were gas lines and rising food prices during the carter administration..
You should look up the facts bub. Reagan raised taxes three times during his time in office, only a small portion of one of those raises dealt with "the working class" the rest were aimed at businesses. Reagan wasn't perfect, but he was a hell of a lot better than carter and a world better than obama.
daPlumber702 11 months ago
@daPlumber702 oh, so instead of dealing with scarcity of commodities by letting the free market take care of it by itself (rising costs make for a greater drive to reduce inefficiencies) you would rather be a filthy communist and use tax money to bribe industry to lower prices? see by giving welfare to the poor, they go out and spend it immediately, so you put the money into those industries best fit to provide for America. not so when you roll with some back room, "I know a guy" arrangement.
jwfcp 11 months ago
@jwfcp you really have an affinity for making shit up don't you? look up what reagan did regaurding taxes before you banter again you moron.
You've mixed two administrations that were decades apart.. fail.
by "giving money to the poor" (stealing money from everyon else is a good way to put it) you make the middle and upperclass poorer... and give the poor incentive to stay poor. Good job fuck nut.
daPlumber702 11 months ago 11
@daPlumber702 yeah, everyone LOVES to be poor... idiot. you think its so great, go for it. newsflash, the poor have jobs too, theyre the best jobs they can get and the wages are still garbage, why? because reagan crushed workers rights. republicans are destroying America and democrats are too incompetent to stop them. whether or not employers give a crap, money needs to be flowing into the economy for it to function, if wages cant provide it, its gotta be taxed or the whole thing falls apart.
jwfcp 11 months ago
@daPlumber702 oh and its bush that spent all that money, they dined and dashed. do you understand that obama attempting to clean up the mess is a good thing, or do you have the mental capacity of a teenage girl at the mall with daddies credit card?
jwfcp 11 months ago
@jwfcp - Obama is trying to clean up the mess? Please, his solutions are like trying to put out a fire by pouring nitroglycerin on it.
HexTest 9 months ago
@jwfcp - "you do know that most corporations pay no income tax right?"
You do know that their CEO's and individuals must still pay an income tax right?
HexTest 9 months ago
@jwfcp A system that owes trillions in unfunded liabilities is not what I would call a "balanced" system.
Especially compared to 401(k)'s which can lead to several times the return versus what you pay in.
HexTest 9 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Democrats started Social Security and claimed participation in the program would be completely voluntary. Democrats then made it a non voluntary program. Democrats said participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual income into the Program. Democrats changed that to 7.65% on the first $90,000.
n5ifi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Democrats said that the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year. Democrats made it no longer tax deductible. Democrats said the money that participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' would not be mixed into the general operating fund. Democrats moved the social security money into the general operating fund and the money was spent.
n5ifi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Democrats said that the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Democrats changed that so that up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed. Which party was in charge and made these changes? Democrats!
Which party allowed Immigrants to move into this country, and at age 65, receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to illegal immigrants, even though they never paid a dime into it.
n5ifi 1 year ago
500 billion dollars a year for the pentagon to over throw 3rd world governments and take their oil, chase around goat herders that live in caves and people wonder where the money went? its in warring for profits. as i understand it the remnants of the 'holy roman empire' went bankrupt trying to expand its influence one more time. the u.s. is on the same track with the same ideologies. GFL next generation.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
Solution: Abolish Government.
vspqbd 1 year ago
I only wish someone would dig up the video of Hillary Clinton in 2003 declaring "My husband has fixed Social Security and it's good until 2040".It was right after the US senate turned away President Bush's attempt to save it.
Bigband78 1 year ago
Truer words have rarely been spoken.
dlsofsetx 1 year ago
A heck of a video! Though, the reality is hard to swallow!
We need to declare total war to the socialists, progressists, marxists, islamists big spending bosses!
RobertRobls 1 year ago
This country has turned into a full blown corporate dictatorship. SS will be 100% solvent until 2037. And 75% solvent until 2100. That is the most stable institution this country has. No bank or business is guaranteed to last until 2015, let alone 2037.
They claim we cannot let the tax cuts for the rich expire (though they did NOT create any jobs under Bush) and we cannot cut the $700 Billion Defense budget, because that would mean hating the troops (what?) But SS? Oh, we can get rid of that
normalais 1 year ago
@normalais
Who told you SS was solvent until 2037, and 75% solvent until 2100? Obama? that's the funniest thing I've heard all day. And Obamacare won't raise health-care costs either, right? And we need to keep spending more money that we don't have to get out of debt, right?
Did it ever occur to you that your politicians will tell you whatever you want to hear to keep them in power, and then they hope you never get out a $5 calculator.
Wake up.
docgambee 1 year ago
@docgambee Of course Obamacare will raise health care costs dumbass. There was not public option, which is the only thing that would lower health care costs. Which is why the health insurance companies and the media they own fought so hard against it.
Are you righties really that painfully stupid?
normalais 1 year ago
@normalais
Again, have you ever taken math? Apparently not. History? Doubtful. Socialized health care has been a MISERABLE failure in every country it's been tried from Canada to Europe. I lived in France, Belgium, and Germany so please don't tell me how great it is.
If Obamacare was so great, how come our politicians don't want it for themselves? How come it had to be drawn up behind closed doors? Why does it need 10 years of taxes to pay for the first 6 years of service?
F****** brilliant.
docgambee 1 year ago
@docgambee HAHAHAHAHAHA yeah terrible terrible health care. So terrible that when you say the words "American health care" people in Canada and Europe start laughing.
You could not force a Canadian or a European to trade health care systems with you if you put a gun to their heads.
Stop being a brain dead zombie and falling for the propaganda they feed you with.
normalais 1 year ago
@normalais
Put away your teleprompter bro. Have you ever lived outside of your trailer park? Ever lived in another country and had to go see a doctor? Do you even know a single European or Canadian? I have business contacts in 5 different European countries. My wife's family lived for 30 years in Alberta, one of the most prosperous provinces in Canada. But I'm sure you know more than they do about how "wonderful" their own health care is, right?
You are the Dupe that Obama wanted. Nice work.
docgambee 1 year ago
@normalais
And you're aware of the fact that the Canadian Prime Minister recently said that their health-care system is about to "implode". You know, my mathematically-challenged friend, there's a reason taxes are 40-50% in Canada. Here's a hint: it's not going to their military.
Tell you what, send me your address, and I'll ship you a Casio Calculator and a World History Textbook on my dime. Please. Use them before you're old enough to vote.
docgambee 1 year ago
@docgambee hahaha the only country imploading is USA.
USA has the most expensive health care system by far.
The most inefficient also (20% administrative costs, in Japan: 2%, in Canada: 6%)
700,000 people go bankrupt in USA every year because of health care costs. Nobody has ever gone bankrupt because of health care costs in canada or europe.
And thousands die in USA cuz they can't afford your scam of a health care system.
you're an idiot. but keep it coming, great laughs
normalais 1 year ago
@normalais
The US is imploding because the liberal idiots who run this country are trying to copy their socialist neighbors.
Chew on this Einstein: in my home state, the govt is already involved in health-care in the form of mandates. 24 of them. These FED MANDATES raise the premiums by 30-51%. So instead of paying $400-$450/month to take care of my family of 5, I have to pay $800+. All because of GOVT MANDATES for services I don't need or want.
So you think MORE govt is needed? No thanks.
docgambee 1 year ago
@normalais
Brainchild, the US has expensive health care because the govt is already involved.
Only complete idiots would agree that MORE govt intervention is needed. The govt needs to stop protecting their buddies in insurance with bailouts and let them sink or swim on the strength of their product. This is basic Markets 101. If a company knows they get no govt bailouts, that they have to put out a competitive product at a competitive price or else lose business to their competitors, they will
docgambee 1 year ago
@docgambee Listen retard, USA is the only country in the world that has a private health insurance system. And it is the MOST expensive in the world by far.
I know you people have had your brain replaced with Faux News so you can't think. But there really is nothing to think about here. The facts are in front of you as clear as day.
Funny how 85% of Canadians support their gov. run health care system. Even conservatives. Because they know how terrible it is in America
normalais 1 year ago
Schmuck, you don't get it do you? You failed math at UCLA so you can't compute the fact that govt has already DOUBLED my health care costs due to mandates. You think the "private" insurance companies have a choice on these mandates? You think they should work for free? You think I have a choice on them?
And please shut your cake hole about how many Canadians "love" their healthcare when you've never lived there or had to use it. You're just another "enlightened" idiot who needs to read a book.
docgambee 1 year ago
@docgambee No, what doubled your health care costs is the fact that health insurance companies need to make higher profits every single quarter. Meaning: they will lower the number of people who recieve health care, and raise premiums on everyone else.
They will do this forever until it will be so bad that people will start a revolution against the health insurance companies.
And Veterans Affaris is already the #1 ranked health care system in USA. It is also a total gov. run system.
normalais 1 year ago
@docgambee And you're just another idiot who has been brainwashed by Faux Noise and the greedy special interests that rob you blind.
They want sheep like you to think that health care is terrible in Canada and any government intervention anywhere is terrible, because that way they can rob you blind like the sucker that you are.
And yes, 85% of Canadians support their system. Look it up. I know it makes your brainwashed little mind want to expload. LOL
normalais 1 year ago
@normalais
Your administrative costs of Canada are complete B.S., but nice try.
While it may appear that no one is going bankrupt directly because of health care in Europe, its because the govt is paying for it. I bet there are thousands of people going bankrupt due to 40-50% taxes on their income to pay for this "free" health care.
You just don't get basic math do you? That's probably why you like all the freebies the govt is throwing at you. You really think it's free.
LMAO.
docgambee 1 year ago
@docgambee Umm no those administrative costs are not total BS. From Japan to Europe to Canada they are about 2-8%. Varries from country to country a bit, but point is in USA they are 20%, 10 times more than in Japan.
My math skills? I have a masters degree in Architecture and my own firm in Germany. I make more money in 6 months than you make in 3 years. Trust me on that you fucking brain dead retard.
normalais 1 year ago
@normalais
Good. Please go back to Germany. And consider the fact that a reason why admin costs in US are so high is because they have to deal with these federal mandates, etc., not to mention the fact that the US population is about 10 times that of Canada. Congrats on your math skills. Use them. I have a Doctorate in Medicine & Chiropractic, so I'll just smile at your income claim. I also know a little more about HC than you because I have to live it. Trust me on that my liberal loser friend.
docgambee 1 year ago
@docgambee Umm no the reason admin costs are so high is because US does not have a gov. run system, meaning all the money is not spent on health care, but on bull shit like TV ads for insurance companies ETC.
Look, I know people like you have been programmed to support being robbed blind, and you sheep believe that anything else is communism. I understand that.
I just think it is hilarious. LMAO. Oh, and the rest of the world agrees. Everyones thinks conservative americans are retarded
normalais 1 year ago
@docgambee Hey man, you want to have the biggest joke of a health care system in the world, go ahead. And the nurse association of America supports a government run system, because they are nurses, the only people in this system who really care about the people.
You're fucking retarded. Watch your health care costs double again, and again, and again...Until every American goes bankrupt.
normalais 1 year ago
@docgambee A Doctorate? For you??? hahaha yeah right and I'm Elvis Presley.
Just keep your brainwashed garbage to yourself conservatard sheeple.
normalais 1 year ago
@normalais
Hey Elvis, check you're inbox.
Have a good one bro.
docgambee 1 year ago
@docgambee You know what? I really don't care anymore. I want to live in Germany. It is much better here: economy, quality of life, roads, health care, you name it.
America will be destroyed because any country is only as strong as its middle class, and conservative policies are all about giving more to the billionaires/wall street at the expense of the middle class.
Trickle down? It does work. Only instead of trickle, it is a stream. And instead of money, it is piss.
normalais 1 year ago
@normalais >>> So you're just going to disregard everything this man said in the video and stick to your liberal ideology regardless of its known consequences huh?
TommyWaters 1 year ago
@TommyWaters I don't agree with what the man said and I don't have an ideology. I believe both communism and capitalism are disasters. The only system that works is social democracy: which means a capitalist system that is reformed according to our ethics and ideals as a society. Instead of this free for all middle class destroying wall street mafia we have now. It is somewhere between capitalism and socialism, bits of both, but no certain ideology.
normalais 1 year ago
@normalais >>> If you knew history and understood how many more people would live in poverty and how much lower the standard of life for people in this country and elsewhere if capitalism wasn't adopted then you wouldn't call it a disaster. Where are your examples of so-called social democracy working? What are the ethics and ideals of society? Society consists of a multitude of individuals with their own ethics and ideals.
TommyWaters 1 year ago
@normalais >>>> It's not desirable that an attempt at forming an economic system on "society's ethics and ideals" be made. Precisely because there would not be enough consesus, it would be grossly inefficient and unproductive therefore drastically lowering the standard of life, and lastly it would breed corruption. Social democracy is just another name for socialism because that is exactly what it would become in practice. It would force individuals to submit to the collective.
TommyWaters 1 year ago
@TommyWaters Nope. Social Democracy works very well. I know you zombies are programmed to believe anything other than letting Wall Street run around like a dog with rabbies is "socialism", but that's only because you're a bunch of zombies.
Unproductive? Lowering the standard of life? Corruption? Those things right now are the order of the day after 30 years of Reaganomics.
normalais 1 year ago
@normalais >>> Still no examples of how social democracy works very well. Wall Street and other businesses run amuck have been able to wreak so much havoc largely because of collaboration with the government. The government has written some laws that limited competition, some laws that created an situation where businesses could make their dealings and transactions with consumers more ambiguous, and laws that allowed the few things that should be regulated to go unregulated. I already
TommyWaters 1 year ago
@normalais >>> explained why social democracy will be socialism in practice. Zombies don't provide reason. Instead they make proclamations like the ones you continue to make without explanation or example... "the only system that works is social democracy," or "social democracy works very well."
TommyWaters 1 year ago
@TommyWaters Ugh. If you want to see a zombie, go look in a mirror.
USA has had 30 years of Reaganomics and is collapsing.
Sweden, Germany, Norway, Denmark are social democracies and are doing very very well.
normalais 1 year ago
@normalais Iceland was at the top of that list 5-6 years ago. what happened to them? Bankruptcy... I would also like to tell you that All of the countries above with exception of Denmark have a high debt to gdp and a decreasing tax base all the while transfer payments are increasing more and more.
Also I would point out that Reagan was more of a Keynesian than most people would admit. I.e decreasing taxes and increasing government spending (war).
goodatbasebal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Republican Jesus says: "Who needs Social Security? Are there not homeless shelters for the elderly poor?"
AtlasShruggery 1 year ago
Same old tiresome arguments against the most successful system in the history of the world. Politics is about who gets to collect what money from whom and for what purpose. If you are not giving money to SSI on the relatively secure gamble that it will be there when you need it, provided you have the brains and the genes to live long enough, then to whom will you be giving your money? What we are seeing right now is that Corporations, the banks, and the power elite will be taking your money.
BillSalem 1 year ago
"Social Security will pay out more this year than it gets in payroll taxes, marking the first time since the program will be in the red since it was overhauled in 1983, according to the annual authoritative report released Thursday by the program's actuary." - The Washington Times Thursday August 5, 2010
TheVegasPatriot 1 year ago
Your point is the young takes care of the old? I dont see nothing wrong about that... I wanna hear yall complain when u retire.
rapozaofl 1 year ago
@rapozaofl
There's nothing wrong with that unless it's involuntary, which SS is. There are many good things in this life that people should do, but it does not follow that they should be compelled to do said things.
oterj0 1 year ago
Professor Williams has it right. SS is exactly like a Ponzi scheme. The worst thing about it, is that not only is the new money that's put into it used to pay the old members of the scheme, but that any surplus in the new money coming in has been wasted, not saved, blown by Congress on wasteful other spending. Bottom line: it's a Ponzi scheme in the hands of spendthrifts who can't be trusted with all that money!
CAridge2008 1 year ago
hello folks get ready to give your social security back to the government. All that money you paid in the past 50 years will be used for bankrolling the huge immigration population that will need funding baby boomers you are the perfect scape goats.
jobedied 1 year ago
A hundred trillion? Who's got all that money these days? Hmmm - the banks? Big bonuses, million dollar salaries... great profits even in health care industry. And the oil industry. Big Pharma. Maybe they could help us???
bodryn 1 year ago
@bodryn
Not sure what big banks, big oil, and big pharma have to do with the ponzi scheme that is SS. What exactly is the connection, big bodryn, other than SS is in the hole and those industries have money?
oterj0 1 year ago
I am not saying Social Security checks will stop completely. What will probably happen is when all the Baby Boomers are retired, the government will have to vastly increase SS taxes while greatly increasing the retirement age at the same time. They have already raised the retirement age from 65 to 67 for young people. That age will probably increase to 77, and taxes with go from 12.4% to over 25%. I'm not sure if the younger generation will go for that.
mkhaas 1 year ago
@mkhaas
Oh, I wish they would stop immediately. So long as the SS system has to be supported on my back, I hope the system fails so I won't be compelled to donate anymore. If instead I could just voluntarily opt out, then I would have no vested interest in SS' success or failure.
oterj0 1 year ago
oterj: You remind me of one of the blind men who was asked to describe an elephant, so he felt its side and described it as a wall. It takes a smarter person to realize that no one person sees the whole picture. The U.S. is a country of diversity: diversity of thought, of ideology, of faith, and lots more. Learn to live with it, and you'll be a true American. Meanwhile, a little empathy for others wouldn't hurt.
bodryn 1 year ago
What does any of that have to do with a coercive retirement/insurance/welfare or whatever system you want to call it? Whether or not I see the whole picture is irrelevant. Tell me, is SS retirement, insurance, or welfare? If retirement, why can't people choose where to invest their retirement? If insurance, why do rich people get benefits? If welfare, why not just simplify the system and only give benefits for the poor? SS cannot be justified with out of place references to America's diversity.
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 I'm afraid that trying to reason this out with you is rather like trying to explain our system of government to a space alien. Meanwhile, since you obviously care more about yourself than for others, and do not accept the current U.S. government system, you maybe should try your luck in another country that agrees more with what you want, if you can find such a place.
bodryn 1 year ago
That you won't discuss the issue suggests you cannot defend the program. It's not about me or you, it's about anyone else who may be reading the posts. You're telling them that you can't defend your position.
Why is it obvious I don't care about others? Because I don't support legalized ponzi schemes? Why don't you leave the country? This is a conservative country, which is pretty much unique in the western world. You have many options for socialist countries, why don't you move there?
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 What you call socialist countries are actually about midway between true socialism, and laissez faire capitalism. The deregulation of banks and finance has brought the WORLD to the brink of total economic collapse. THEY were the ones with the Ponzi schemes. And if AIG had not been propped up, as perhaps the largest insurer in the world, we'd probably be in full scale depression right now. And I don't intend to move, because I served my country. How about you???
bodryn 1 year ago
"The deregulation of banks and finance has brought the WORLD to the brink of total economic collapse".
How about you be just a little more vague? "Deregulation" is all you've got? Care to elaborate what precisely?
I don't intend to move either. I intend to do everything in my power to see SS fail unless I'm allowed to opt out of the system. Perhaps it would be in both our best interests if SS contained an opt out provision. Would you support such an idea? Why or why not?
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 I don't have the time or space to educate you about how default swaps and other phony profit schemes have put the world on thin ice financially. Financial institutions needed continued regulation to avoid all this, and during the Reagan years, regulations began being eroded.
Social security: If it were optional, lots of young people would opt out so they can buy more gadgets, etc., and then in penniless old age, the government would have to come in and bail them out anyway.
bodryn 1 year ago
This is the tried and true argument about the recession, that financial derivatives caused the collapse. However, it just doesn't make sense that CDS, which are zero sum derivatives, would cause the economy to collapse. It's a wager between two willing parties where one wins and the other loses, with NO NET CHANGE TO THE ECONOMY. If in the aggregate the economy has the same money, how do CDS cause a collapse?
oterj0 1 year ago
If people really would leave SS in droves given the option, what does that say about the program? Doesn't it imply that people do not view it as valuable? Surely people can do critical thinking and proper value the time value of money as well as the need for money in the future to make the best decision for themselves. If not, does our coddling them help them learn how? Unlikely.
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 Most everybody I know reaching retirement age seems to look forward to getting social security. You also have to remember that private companies often go out of business if not bankrupt and there goes many retirement accounts. Time value of money is fine, but what if you invested your money in a Ponzi scheme? Or a company whose stock value fell? Too risky.
bodryn 1 year ago
@bodryn You must also remember that SS is not only for retirement, it is also disability insurance, if your health fails before retirement. Hard to get an insurance policy to do all that you want it to do, and hope it is a solid company. I thought Montgomery Ward was solid. Lots of companies have gone away...
bodryn 1 year ago
I guess I addressed the disability issue above, but the only other thing I'd add is that all this still doesn't answer why we should compel people to participate. Your argument about guessing which insurance companies are solid is an argument for a govt program, but not an argument for a MANDATORY govt program. There is no reason to oppose an opt out; it's just a fundamental disagreement. There are lots of things people should do, but I'm not so arrogant as to force them to do so by govt fiat.
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 The reason people are compelled to participate is that for this type of program to work, there has to be a universal base to draw upon. The alternative is for politicos over time to chisel away at the safety net until it dwindles away into little or nothing. It really ought to be paid for by taxes, but it wasn't. Not a good way, I'd say. Forcing people to buy from a corrupt private insurance company, wondering whether they will pay out properly.
bodryn 1 year ago
Yes, as stated above, this is the argument for a compulsory system, just not an argument for a GOVT-RUN compulsory system. Govt is just as corrupt as private companies, it's just that govt can force you to buy their product by law, whereas private companies can't. Even if I accept your argument that a mandated annuity makes sense, the idea that it must be run by corrupt govt officials who can throw you in jail if you don't abide by their rules makes absolutely no sense.
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 To put it another way, without everybody participating, there would be less funds to draw upon. I suppose what it is, is forcing people to be responsible for their fellow man, which they should be anyway. Think of places like Calcutta, etc., beggars everywhere you look. We try for a better world, not a worse one. The 19th century proves conservatism is morally bankrupt.
bodryn 1 year ago
This is where I believe the liberal guilty conscience comes into play. Statistically speaking (yes, I know the stats on US charitable donations), I am way more generous with my charitable giving than you and yet you accuse me of greed. That's what people would generally call a guilty conscience. You know how cheap you are, so you want govt to give on your behalf so you can feel better. Any resistance means more guilt for you, thus you project onto political opponents.
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 Glad to hear you are so generous. You don't come across as a generous person, but coulda fooled me. I have sacrificed plenty in my life for the good of others though it's none of your business. I also profited quite nicely when Eisenhower put the NDEA student loans into place, and LBJ restored many veterans education benefits. Leveled the playing field. Neocons have incessantly chiseled away at veterans benefits including health care.
bodryn 1 year ago
I get your point, and I do believe in diversification, but it doesn't follow that because you think it's good therefore everyone should be compelled to do so. If we must compel people to buy an annuity, why must it be the govt's annuity? We require people buy auto insurance and there aren't any state run auto insurance companies. Why not require a min value annuity and disability insurance be purchase from whomever? SS is not about retirement or insurance, it's about creating govt dependents.
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 Again I repeat: private annuities may or may not exist depending on the management. Many corporations have disappeared in recent decades. Who can predict which? I prefer the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. As for govt dependents, would you prefer that the elderly exist on private donations? There have not been stable private career paths for years now in the U.S. That all changed after Reagan's union-busting policies. Unions made 40 hour weeks the norm.
bodryn 1 year ago
@oterj0 @oterj0 Again I repeat: private annuities may or may not exist depending on the management. Many corporations have disappeared in recent decades. Who can predict which? I prefer the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. As for govt dependents, would you prefer that the elderly exist on private donations? There have not been stable private career paths for years now in the U.S. That all changed after Reagan's union-busting policies. Unions made 40 hour weeks the norm.
bodryn 1 year ago
This debate will be over when all the Baby Boomers are retired and demanding their checks. There will be no way to pay them, even if SS taxes are doubled or tripled. If I'm wrong, 20 years from now I'll gladly eat crow(but I'm not wrong).
mkhaas 1 year ago
oterj0: You are obviously too immature to realize that some people are motivated by common decency, unlike you who seem to be all about MONEY. FDR was well liked in his time because he was trying his best to be DECENT to the people. People cried when he died. I'm getting SS now, thanks to FDR. It's not an investment; It is insurance.
bodryn 1 year ago
Where do I start. People being motivated by decency is good, but is it decency if the govt makes you do it? You can't impose morality by govt fiat, so SS is by definition not moral. I donate >10% of my money to charitable causes and I sleep very well at night. I'm sorry you're a miser and you need govt to give to charity on your behalf so you can feel better about yourself.
oterj0 1 year ago
People liked FDR, because he gave them free crap by stealing from future generations. I like people who give me free stuff, even if it's ultimately bad for the country. Imagine that, people are motivated by self preservation.
If SS is insurance, then why isn't the premium paid (FICA tax) proportional to probability of insured incident (poverty in retirement) occurring? That's insurance. Your insurance argument would imply poor people pay the largest premiums, whereas in reality they don't.
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 I think since you were a kid, you must never have had to deal with any poverty issues personally. You seem to know all the bullet points, but seem to lack personal knowledge.
bodryn 1 year ago
@oterj0 You conveniently fail to mention the caps on SS for those making very high income. Those with very high incomes pay even smaller percentages of their income into SS.
bodryn 1 year ago
@bodryn
No, it just wasn't relevant. What you forgot is the cap on benefits. Remember, SS is an EARNED benefit, so the more you pay, the more you get. No sense in rich people getting $10,000+/mo SS checks in retirement, hence the cap.
The only reason raising the cap helps solvency is because of the redistributive nature of benefits calculations. I could go on about bend points and rates, but that'd be too boring and more than 500 characters.
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 Am unable to follow up effectively due to YouTube policies limiting comments.
bodryn 1 year ago
Is Social Security is such a great system, why are people coerced to join it? Are people too dumb to know what a good deal is? Of course not. It is forced because no sane young person would voluntarily pay into it.
Goodness, I could only imagine 12.4% of my income wisely invested and gaining compound interest for 50-60 years.
mkhaas 1 year ago
Yeah, you really have to wonder how good of a deal something is when you have to be forced to do it. I can't stand hearing the logical fallacies SS supporters present as arguments for the system. It's in your best interest (really, why am I coerced?), it's insurance (why do rich people get benefits, they don't need to collect poverty insurance), it's the only money some people get in retirement (yeah, after you took 12.4% of their money for 35 years).
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 Readers: I can't imagine anybody would ever have talked this way 50 years ago, when companies were small, media was owned by MANY companies, and many diverse opinions prevailed. The reason SS taxes are coerced is that people by nature do not tithe. Most people are too selfish for that, so taxes come in to help people out - preferably you give them a hand up, rather than a hand out. Check out the movie Blind Side. Sets a great example!
bodryn 1 year ago
Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to my opinion, or that my opinion is simply a product of your corporate media theory? If the former, sorry the US isn't for you...try Russia. If the latter, then praytell, which pundit did I take my idea from? I don't like the talking heads, nor do I look to them for ideas. I use the old brain to come up with original ideas, which a voluntary opt largely is. I'm sure someone's thought of it, but certainly no one's proposed it in recent memory.
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 FYI: I served my country, I'm sticking around. Would like to make it better, though. As far as your brain, it just may be malfunctioning. How would you know? Of course Russia is a recovering basket case and the media there, free for a few months, is free no longer.
bodryn 1 year ago
@bodryn
By the way, I most certainly do tithe. If you really want to get into the demographics of who donates to charity and who doesn't, I'd welcome that discussion. Do you care to plot histograms of % of income donated to charity by political affiliation? You know exactly what that'll look like; bimodal distribution, with Republicans giving more than Democrats. Again, liberal guilt is the reason SS exists, not conservative greed.
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 So you tithe? Are you a Christian? Do you remember the parable about the rich young ruler?
bodryn 1 year ago
Yes. Jesus told the rich guy to sell everything he had and give to the poor to inherit the kingdom of heaven. He didn't like the answer. Notice that Jesus didn't say sell everything you have and give to the poor or I'll throw you in jail for tax evasion. Coerced morality is no morality at all; God most certainly recognized this by giving humans free choice.
oterj0 1 year ago
Comment removed
bodryn 1 year ago
The money SS does not go into one or a few peoples bank accounts. It is intended to be spread out to older or disadvantaged people. Also the word "scheme" implies secrecy. The problems and system workings of SS is not really a secret.
wer4321 1 year ago
@wer4321
Is that what you hang your hat on? SS isn't a ponzi scheme because it has a "good" purpose, spreading wealth to older and disadvantaged people for vote buying...er, I mean out of compassion? The mechanism by which the system works, pay as you go, is textbook definition of a Ponzi scheme. Call it Ponzi scheme, paygo, dog, or any other word (words are arbitrary), but the principle is the same, that is the same as Madoff's scam.
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 in a word, yes. And if Roosevelt is still buying votes, he's wasting his time don't you think? SS has been in place under both parties both parties. So was Bush buying votes? Is it just completely out of the question that SS helps people?
wer4321 1 year ago
SS has been in place under both parties, because entitlements are impossible to eliminate once created. FDR wasnt just buying votes for him, he bought votes for all Dems for generations. Do you really think Reps reap the re-election benefits of SS? We're the ones trying to remove that noose from our necks. SS is a transfer program, it's a zero sum game. If some people win out, it's because some others got to be the losers. Don't you get that?
oterj0 1 year ago
► @oterj0 You're gonna remove the SS noose from your neck and retire with what? Enron common stock? AIG? Bear Stearns? Morgan Stanley? THEY conned you, not the SSA. Do you want out for good, no ifs ands, or buts? You and everyone else? BTW, if SS is a Ponzi scheme then so is the Army. Any institution you name runs on a revenue stream, and the SS revenue stream is legit. Let's keep it that way
TejanoChimbo 1 year ago
401k, cash, commodities, and business income. An extra 12.4% of my income would go a long way to help beef up any of those, particularly since the system will have exhausted the trust fund by the time I can retire. I know I'll be getting nothing from SS, I just want to opt out now and give up all my owed benefits. I think opt out should be voluntary, should be for good, and should require giving up all owed benefits. Would you be okay with that?
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 ► You certainly have learned your POV with a passion. May I ask who your mentor might be? Does he have a show on TV?
TejanoChimbo 1 year ago
@TejanoChimbo
I haven't really followed any particular pundit for quite some time. I like to think that my ideology is influenced by many, but defined by none. My favorite was Larry Elder, a libertarian talk show host in LA. I haven't heard boo from him since I left CA, so I'm not sure how big he is anymore. I also liked listening to the socialists when I was still in college. Know thine enemy, right?
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 ► What's the enemy doing nowadays?
TejanoChimbo 1 year ago
@TejanoChimbo
Probably living off unemployment and growing hydroponic pot in the basement. Who knows what losers do when they realize they have to pay their own way.
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 ► Those are your leaders' codewords for blocking social legislation, aren't they?
TejanoChimbo 1 year ago
@TejanoChimbo
Social or socialist legislation?
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 ► JC,, you want to haggle over definition again? I think we went through this already and determined you can call it whatever you want
TejanoChimbo 1 year ago
@oterj0 Yep, thought so. It's all about oterj0, and to heck with anybody else. That me first mentality, that recrudesced during the Reagan years, and all this touting of Ayn Rand, etc. This is a product of the right wing buying out nearly all the media in the U.S., and a lot of young people getting one side, and not knowing how good it was in America 50 years ago before all this crap started. This is the face of America in decline.
bodryn 1 year ago
I don't know what you're replying to here. It's not about you or I, it's about logic and corporate well-being, but you keep making it about me, because you can't win the argument, so you figure if you can debase me, you win by default. Again, all I argued from the beginning was voluntary opt outs allow 1) free choice and 2) make SS stronger as people who voluntarily opt out forego all owed benefits. Why do you insist on turning this into a referendum on my supposed greed?
oterj0 1 year ago
If the Army runs its pension system like SS, then yes, it's pension is a ponzi scheme, otherwise, this comment doesn't make sense.
No company could get away with funding a pension like SS is funded. Private companies have to have their pension liabilities 100% funded. If they drop below 80%, they generally have to take drastic measures to get it back up. SS' liabilities are completely unfunded, because it's pay as you go. If a company did what SS does, its executives would be in jail.
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 ► The Army and its pension are pay as you go, funded by an ongoing revenue stream, and an unwavering commitment to the revenue. Army retirees get their money out of working peoples paychecks. Now is that a Ponzi scheme? What happens to corporate pension funds in Chapter 11? That's where the commitment disappears
TejanoChimbo 1 year ago
Then, yes, the Army's pension is a ponzi scheme.
Are you trying to justify a ponzi scheme by arguing that pensions can be liquidated in bankruptcy? How do two wrongs make a right?? Besides, so long as you don't work for the company, your money isn't at risk. I however, have 12.4% of my earnings forcibly removed from my paycheck for a ponzi scheme I have no interest in participating in.
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 ► I agree it's a Ponzi scheme by YOUR definition (which is still unclear to me), not by mine or Webster's.
TejanoChimbo 1 year ago
Here's what Wikipedia says.
"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned."
That's my definition and it sounds a whole lot like pay as you go, exception ponzi schemes are typically funded through deception, whereas SS is funded via coercion.
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 ► Is my grandkids kindergarten teacher's salary is a Ponzi scheme?
You know she ain't getting her paycheck till we pay our property taxes
TejanoChimbo 1 year ago
Actually no. Your grandkid's kindergarten teacher gets paid from the local citizens who benefit from her work. Certainly it would be better if schools were privately funded and people who directly benefited paid rather than coercive taxes, but it's still getting paid for work. Pay as you go is a wealth transfer program of no value other than creating govt dependents.
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 ► I see.
Pay as you go wealth transfer is out of the question.
TejanoChimbo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oterj0 ► Am I trying to justify a ponzi scheme by arguing that pensions can be liquidated in bankruptcy?
No, not at all. I just see a lot of reverence for Corporate operations, and couldn't help taking a shot at it. When Corprations go into Chapter 11 proceedings they take as many assets as they can off the table as they can so investors can be paid before employees. They'll typically do anything to keep the dough upstairs where they think it rightfully belongs
TejanoChimbo 1 year ago
Comment removed
ScotchTreat 1 year ago
@oterj0 Oterj's entire philosophy seems anti-American. He might as well know that trying to eliminate social security is a political dead end. Neocons keep saying SS is going bankrupt. Yet they never talk about raising the caps for people with large incomes!
As for deregulation, check out what evading regulation does to coal mines!
bodryn 1 year ago
Oh, free choice is anti-American...that's good to know, because I had previously thought it was the essence of Americanism. Thanks for correcting me (tongue in cheek). What a foolish statement on your part.
I'm not trying to eliminate SS, I'm suggesting a voluntary opt out allows people the choice to participate or not and it strengthens SS, because people who opt out lose all owed benefits.
Coal mine regulations?? Way off topic.
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 Don't you get that in the wealthiest thirty-plus industrialized countries, people pay taxes? You must think of yourself as a self-made successful man but with a noose of responsibility around your neck. In the current US environment there are some BIG losers. People doing work deemed necessary by those in charge, yet ending up bankrupt, many for lack of health care, and/or layoffs.
bodryn 1 year ago
Just not true. Why is it that disagreeing with how some govt program operates is akin to being selfish and greedy in your mind? Is there no room for dissent? Why not debate the topic rather than demonize the person?
oterj0 1 year ago
Remember, SS is an EARNED benefit, it is social insurance, not welfare. If you want it to be welfare, fine, let's tax only rich people, give benefits to only poor people and call a spade a spade. That would surely be the end of SS, which is precisely what this SS name game is all about, creating a leviathan. All I suggested was a voluntary opt out that would actually improve SS solvency by reducing future liabilities.
oterj0 1 year ago
Ummm... Madoff didn't pay anybody back. It didn't matter if they were early or late investors. How do you think he accumulated 50 BILLION DOLLARS? What he did could best be described as a pyramid scheme. Where the primary investors each recruit more investors, who recruit more investors who recruit more investors... until the whole investment becomes so impersonal that the person in charge of all the money bails on everybody else, which they don't realize until it's too late. A pyramid scheme...
VivaLaSam09 1 year ago
@VivaLaSam09 He payed out to the people who got out early. Only the late comers lost the 50 billion.
surprise1982 1 year ago
Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. People who enter Ponzi schemes do it voluntarily. Social Security is required by law. Therefore, it's considered to be extortion.
JuanTheRetroGamer 1 year ago
@JuanTheRetroGamer
Nice!
oterj0 1 year ago
I stand by my comments. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. The definition of which which is paying off older investors with new investors money until the scheme can no longer function. The only reason Social Security has made it this far is because tens of millions of Baby Boomers paid into the system, but once they retire in mass, the scheme will fall apart. The only other option is tripling the younger generation's taxes and telling them they can't retire until they're 85.
willgarrow 1 year ago 17
@willgarrow You are so right... FDR did more to set this country on a downhill slide than any other President with Social Insecurity. And Obamacare will absolutely break the back of America unless it is repealed in the next congress. Less than 4 months until the 2nd Revolution. Let's make Nov. 2, 2010 the day we save America!
ProudConservative2 1 year ago
@ProudConservative2 Canada has a better health care system and does it cheaper than the US even now before the new health care system takes effect. Yet Canada is recovering from the recession better than most countries. They've had really good health care for decades! Smarten up!
bodryn 1 year ago
@bodryn
Healthcare and the recession have nothing to do with one another. If the ends justify the means, then I think we should create the matrix and force people to live in little pods full of goo. If we did that, society would be much more peaceful and orderly...
If Canada's healthcare system is better than America's, does that really justify the coercive nature of it?
oterj0 1 year ago
@willgarrow a SOCIALIST Ponzi scheme... that like all, will crash!
ProudConservative2 1 year ago 13
@ProudConservative2 No, USA will crash, because of conservatism. USA is on the verge of bankrupcy, but not Canada or Germany, that have Universal health care.
They are ROBBING us blind. Social Security is next. They're taking OUR MONEY and laughing all the way to the bank, while dumb inbred hillbillies like you are smiling because you're so blinded by this ideology propaganda
normalais 1 year ago
@normalais
Did you ever take math or history? You think Canada's health care system is solvent? LMAO. Canada's own Prime Minister recently said it's "on the verge of imploding". My wife's entire family is all from there, and moved to the U.S. for a reason. It's BANKRUPT.
Please get a clue before repeating liberal soundbites.
docgambee 1 year ago
@ProudConservative2: LOL. The only way SS will die, is if the elites want it to die............and there's a 99% chance it will.
MiracleMile90 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul's plan will balance the budget in 3 years without raising taxes!
Social programs remain untouched as the BIG problems are resolved.
Government employees will be phased out as they quit/retire or moved to other jobs. Learn more at /watch?v=IQAHziV3HoM
vechorik 3 months ago
@willgarrow of course it is. the SCOTUS declared in Flemming vs Nestor in 1960 that the US gov't HAS NO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION to give workers benefits. which is why they are able to do things like raise the contribution levels as well as the age upon which you can receive benefits simply by getting the votes in congress. Also there is NO TRUST FUND, in '39 the gov't officially made it a pay-go system (your contributions don't go to a fund instead to other workers)
umrmecheman 1 year ago
.
► Nonsense. Revenue streams, including taxes, are not Ponzi schemes
TejanoChimbo 1 year ago
@TejanoChimbo
The only reason Social Security has made it this far is because tens of millions of Baby Boomers have been paying into it. Now they are all getting ready to retire and draw from it. Just a tiny bit of common sense shows this is a train wreck in the very near future.
willgarrow 1 year ago
► Oh, so common sense is behind your POV. How about the arithmetic?
TejanoChimbo 1 year ago
@TejanoChimbo That the programs will ultimately go bankrupt is clear from the trustees' reports. On pages 201 and 202 of the Medicare report, you will find the conclusive arithmetic: over the next 75 years, Social Security and Medicare will cost an estimated $103.2 trillion, while dedicated taxes and premiums will total only $57.4 trillion. The gap is $45.8 trillion. (All figures are expressed in &