Why dont we allow people to choose... If you want to stay in SS and MC than you can, and if you want to do something else than allow that as well. Even if they only allowed me to put that money in tbills, the return would be way more.
Yes, it;s in SERIOUS trouble... by 2044, it will only have 73 cents available to cover every dollar it pays out unless we take DRASTIC action now such as eliminating it entirely and thus guaranteeing the Bush era tax cuts to the top 2% income bracket are not touched. Seriously people, can't you see who is generating this propaganda and what their motivation is? Follow the money, not the opinions. Only danger to SS is if we listen to the self serving propaganda put out by the rich
@mecher3k Wrong. I am NOT in favor of making it private. I am in favor of saving it, keeping it under government control, maintaining it as it is. It will need some minor adjustments as all programs do but it should not mean pushing the retirement start date later; it is not bankrupt, it has money, it is self-sustaining. The only danger it is in comes from wealthy people who do not need SS and want the government to rob it to pay for THEIR tax cuts.
@MrJohnDoeTheThird there will be riots, and blood in the streets. But most westerners will die. Many do not even know how to cook for themselves, let alone grow and hunt their own food. To those of you who say they can trade for it, what does America make? Guns and Sex would be the main currencies, and unless people try to reopen factories and farms, with the poor survival knowledge of the populace, most will starve.
The same youth that put Obama into power will never know what hit them when the system they were taught is necessary for retirement goes completely bust.
Bullshit. Raise the cap on social security and it's solvent into the distant future. Before social security the poorest demographic in the country were those above 65 - now they are the wealthiest. In those days before social security the elderly often had no relatives and died poor and miserable. If you say "then they should have saved money" - then you aren't dealing in reality.
@luxmorningstar False, the soc. sec. trust fund holds no cash. It is invested in gov't bonds. Otherwise known as a loan to the current taxpayer with the guatantee that future taxpayers will repay that "investment" with interest. This means that every dollar ever sent to soc. sec. was spent and is now a part of the 14 + trillion in debt we have. Actually, that's not true because that figure doesn't count the money we are obligated to pay our senior for loaning themselves tax dollars.
"Laws of mathematics"? You mean the way the government has plundered social security for wars and tax cuts for the rich, stealing the money people have paid into for their entire lives, and then blame those said programs for creating deficits? Those laws of mathematics?
Every tax cut is by definition "For the rich" since they are the only ones who pay taxes. Poor people pay no taxes, thus they are unaffected by tax cuts. Saying "tax cuts for the rich" is like saying "maternity clothing for women". Well no duh its for women. Men can't get pregnant!
Not every state has sales tax. Thats a state issue. States can't take social security money, only the federal government does that.
BAM your argument just got destroyed son haha. Nice to see you agree with me about income tax though. Anyone who says "tax cuts for the rich" when referring to income tax is a moron, wouldn't you agree?
Well, your original statement is flawed. The middle class pay income tax. About half the country has little or no income to tax (via income tax, that is). Only about 0.1% is what we would think of as truly rich. OBVIOUSLY not just rich people pay taxes. What exactly is the point you are trying to make?
@Magicwillnz You can't have a tax cut without it benefiting the rich. Of course the rich are going to be better off from a tax cut than anyone else, because they pay most of the taxes.
ALL tax cuts by definition are "tax cuts for the rich". The only people that use the term "tax cuts for the rich" are partisan stooges trying to stir up class warfare. Its a good indicator of someones intelligence too. If they use the term its usually best to just ignore them.
I don't get it. So I can't say "tax cuts for the rich" because the rich are always going to benefit from any tax break? You're making it so I can't differentiate a tax break that mostly affects high income (like capital gains tax and estate tax) and those that affect medium and low income (like cuts to sales tax, for example). Certainly different classes benefit disproportionately from different policies. How would you characterize such a tax break?
@Magicwillnz Its not possible to cut income tax rates without it effecting the rich more than everyone else. ALL income tax cuts are "for the rich" by definition.
Thats all I'm saying. All you have to say is "tax cut" you don't have to add "for the rich" on the end there because its redundant. The only reason people do this is to trick others into thinking the rich are getting some great deal at the expense of the poor. This is clearly not true when it comes to income tax cuts.
But not even that is true. A cut to the top marginal income tax bracket literally only effects the wealthiest Americans. That has generally been the case with recent tax cuts which mostly reduced taxes on earnings on higher tax brackets. You could actually have an income tax break for the poor by only reducing taxes on income earned less than $300,000, for example. Such a tax cut would barely effect the rich.
@FartyFace Actually, the lionshare of taxes that they ultra-rich pay are not income taxes, they are capital gains taxes. The average american by contrast pays more in income taxes than capital gains. So a cut to the income tax, or income tax elimination will affect those who are poorer and don't have capital investments more than the "rich". Unfortunately, the investment of the rich in the market produces jobs and drives the market which is good for the enitre economy.
You are talking specifically about Warren Buffet, a man who intentionally awards himself $0/year as a salary so he can bypass income tax and only pay capital gains taxes. MOST "rich people" are unable to do this. The lions share of the taxes are paid by small business owners and the like. People considered "rich" by Obama standards. Hell, even what you consider the "ultra rich" usually pull in some kind of salary. Go look up the CEO's on the forturne 500 list. They all draw salary
@FartyFace I am not specifically speaking about Warren. There are alot of people who live entirely off stock market gains and dividends. Also, those CEO's do draw a salary, but nearly all of them receive large bonuses that you and I do not get. Those bonuses are not taxable the same as income earned on an hourly wage because they are immune to the 15% FICA taxes that are normally paid.
I'm not advocating raising taxes, I'm advocating getting rid of this broken system and replacing it. Fair Tax
@FartyFace I am not specifically speaking about Warren. There are alot of people who live entirely off stock market gains and dividends. Also, those CEO's do draw a salary, but nearly all of them receive large bonuses that you and I do not get. Those bonuses are not taxable the same as income earned on an hourly wage because they are immune to the 15% FICA taxes that are normally paid.
I'm not advocating raising taxes, I'm advocating getting rid of this broken system and replacing it. Fair Tax
At about 35-seconds the professor states that "they still have money in the banks so they are not bankrupt"
I am confused, what money is he talking about? Is promissory note from the treasury department 'money'? We are borrowing funds from other countries to pay for the SS & medicare/medicaid failures today. Not in a few years - Today.
They are bankrupt and it is disingenuous to pretend that their are "funds" or "accounts" propping these schemes up.
Social Security is not solvent. New congressional estimates say the trust fund that supports Social Security disability will run out of money by 2017, leaving the program unable to pay full benefits, unless Congress acts. About two decades later, Social Security’s much larger retirement fund is projected to run dry as well. It's time to REFORM ALL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANT PROGRAMS NOW -- ELSE WE LOSE THEM! How about the first step to get millionaires off SS and Medicare? And I'm GOP!
@YuppiePrepper Those promissory notes are called BONDS! We borrowed the money from Social Security, China and everyone else and oneday we WILL pay it all back. Social Security is just the first of many bill collectors to come.
It is a tax with money sent directly to the treasury to be instantly spent & always has been. And the fractional reserve banking system (let alone the hollow, moneyless Stock Market) flies in the face of his assertion that the banks have money.
The instant a bank opens it is insolvent because of fractional reserve banking. They stay open based on ever increasing obligation to repay debt... not his version
@YuppiePrepper Actually, it's the funds that have been set aside for SS & Medicare. They have an accounts like your savings. Each year we put more in from tax revenues, but we lose more to pay outs. Hence, the deficits. They aren't bankrupt yet, but if not addressed they will be. It helps to understand how things work before trying to conclude things falsely.
@ThatBlackPanda If you raise taxes the economy will contract and unemployment will increase. There'll be less revenues to SS, not more. Fight middle eastern wars or Iran will get a nuclear arsenal and we'll have WWIII. No one will get SS because we'll all be dead. Solution: SS should be based on a life time of investments, not a transfer payment. An account that is yours and government can't take. If you're risk averse put it in CDs, treasuries or gold and silver. Keep fighting terror.
@ThatBlackPanda I'm not a Libertarian but FDR's government spending policies, the same as Obama's could not end the first great depression. Just like Obama, he was a failure. The jobs of the 1990s were due to the desktop computer, cell phone and internet. Those machines were invented in the 1980s. Bill Clinton took credit but he didn't have anything to do with those jobs. The NATO v Iran/Syria war is dead ahead. We have to take them out now to avoid WWIII later.
FDR without a doubt saved america from what you are trying to bring back.
People were dying in the streets, the gold standard was a failure.
FDR's New Deal created more jobs than any oil company x3.
He was able to spread the wealth in America, stimulate trade and fix the circular loan problem and redistributed the wealth nationally and internationally.
@ThatBlackPanda The retarded are the ones who sling mud in a debate. Employement was never restored in the 1930s. It ranged from 12% to above 20% the entire decade. That's not a recovery. You have to look at the unemployment rate. Relying on # of jobs created is political spin that tells us nothing. Unless unemployment is below 5% the president hasn't accomplished anything. Barack Obama's unemployment rate has been 9.5 % or higher for 2.5 years. That's a miserable failure.
Unemployment peaked at 1933 under Hoover... a republican.
FDR took over from hoover and in the first 100 days implemented the new deal. By 1937 he brought unemployment down to 13% from it's 28% high, but later on the Republicans gained majority in the senate and house, stopped progress, and caused unemployment spiked up. When the progressives regained a political stance FDR's government took unemployment to a record 1.25% low by the time of his death.
@ThatBlackPanda Hoover didn't cut taxes on the right indexes though like Reaganomics does. He was using Democratic Party policies government spending policies mostly. That's why unemployment kept declining. The Keynesian model is only capable of restarting a bear market rally. That's what we're seeing right now. 1936 UE1 never broke even. The second dip began in 1937 after congress raised taxes, a stupid thing to do. Finally WWII ended the depression but at what an incredible cost.
Reagan himself knew that "Reaganomics" could't work, that is why he spent his last two years reversing them and raising taxes. 1937, congress never raised taxes because the republicans refused to allow any new changes to pass, you are just making things up from speculation right now. FDR was the person who pushed America into WWII, one of the only just wars ever. Without the use of FDR's Bombshell, even with WWII, the world would still be in a lock of circular loans.
@ThatBlackPanda Congress most assuredly did raise taxes circa 1935. That resulted in the double dip. Reagan never could control the Democrats insane desire to increase spending, so he agreed to raise taxes to appease them. No economic policy can raise revenues as fast as Democrats can raise spending. The very low unemployment rate of the 1980s and the extraordinary growth rate is a recovery that FDR never could equal. The stimulus package has failed, that' proof Keynesianism is a fraud.
@ThatBlackPanda You are in the smae line of thinking that we can just hire the 14 million people into various government jobs to sit around and collect a paycheck, then unemployment would be at zero!! Its called a broken window fallacy. FDR prolonged the depression and we are still paying for the new deal. Wars dont boost the economy, that is the biggest economic myth ever created.
You can argue that FDR did not 100% stop the great depression but to say he prolonged it is just retarded. If you hire EVERYONE into government jobs just to sit around and collect paychecks... unemployment would be zero because EVERYONE would have a job. Not that I support this, it is just fact... but your conservative, you fail at facts. Wars do boost the economy due to increased production and employment. To recap; you are retarded.
@ThatBlackPanda He did prolong it. Nobody stepped in during the 1920 depression and it was corrected in 6 months. You act as if government stimulus spending is a NECESSARY part of the economy. You are also under the assumption that the free market is to blame for the boom and bust cycle, even though the fed is what creates bubbles and inflation. Wars do NOT boost the economy because the resources necessary to fund these jobs come from the taxpayers. You don't get nothing for nothing moron.
@ThatBlackPanda Now that you've failed ECO 101, lets see. Liberals are scared of facts. They have factaphobia. Everything they try to advocate fails and our economy is showing that. You idiots think that spending our way out of a spending induced crisis will work. You believe in politicians in washington, messiahs and angels that racked up a 14 digit debt and 15 digit unfunded liability. Liberals cant do anything without conservatives, if they could, they would form collectively voluntarily
@ThatBlackPanda Stop sucking FDR's dick and realize that Keynesianism is the problem not the solution. The man had well intentions and some of what he did WAS definitely necessary because the problem was brought on by the Fed. But the second bill of rights?? Are you kidding me? That would have turned the US into the USSA. We would probably be a third world country. If you don't know what I'm talking about I suggest you take a look. "Right to a home"? "Right to a vacation"? at what cost?
It's sad to say but no one will do anything to fix the problem until the system does go broke and everyone is thrown out on the street..............sigh.
@MrJohnDoeTheThird And then, I know what'll happen:They'll blame the rich again with their success and they'll push for legislation on more tax for the rich again and again.
The ~100 year cycle between socialism and classical liberalism is fortunately moving toward the latter. A crash of the system might just be what people need to wake up, similar to the breakup of the Soviet Union. So fellow liberty-minded people, be optimistic! Far more has been done with far fewer people to advance the causes of liberty and equality.
Political propoganda, Cliches, and irrelevant facts to sustain their narcisstic ideas that empower their self esteem. Appealing to emotions and kneejerk reactions while using irrelevant truths as an obscure way to try and deflect facts from your world view. Judging programs and laws by intentions rather than results. The triumph of faith and hope over wisdom and history. Unconstitutional viewpoints that represent collectivism over individualism for the common good. Its economic illiteracy
@vitamaltz: The inability to pay 100% of an obligation is the *definition* of bankruptcy. What "painless" policy changes did you have in mind? Increasing payroll taxes? Raising the retirement age?
You guys are all a little deluded. Social Security will not be bankrupt in a few decades. It will simply have to pay out less than 100% of benefits to retirees. There will still be money in the system. Furthermore, the shortfall can be fixed by simple and fairly painless policy changes.
Prof. Davies concludes by saying that we need to start dismantling Social Security, which is not an idea supported by any data I've ever seen.
Professor Davies knows this but neglects to mention it: the assets that remain in the social security fund -- assets that are declining every day -- are not "hard currency" assets. Rather, they are merely IOUs written by the general fund of the United States Treasury. There is no money in there, only a collection of written promises from the Treasury to repay money that was long ago borrowed. The surplus in Social Security is actually an asset used to improve the appearance of the US debt.
@nepaliman LOL. Coz people are busy watching "Evolution of Dance" or some "Sex" video that gets MILLIONS of hits. Who gives a damn to serious, real & nice subjects?
@nepaliman jeah but not cause of your social security. Just look at your budget for the military. If you look at all the spending for the military of the HOLE world, USA got like 45% this means you (USA) spend almost the same amount for the military as the HOLE world together. And now you talking about social security who makes you bankrupt -,- just ignorant
What is this BS? It's already bankrupt, because the money is not in its own "trust fund"... it's in the general fund, which is in the red already every year. All there is "in the bank" are IOUs.
Comment removed
Neosaigo 1 week ago
This is the one government scam I fell for ... and wish I never did.
KittenKoder 2 weeks ago
Where is the evidence to support the claims made?
dxDONSYCOxb 1 month ago
Social Security is a joke. It's broken. It's stupid. Remove it. I'm glad this guy sees my point.
TheLifeOfaPsycho 1 month ago
Why dont we allow people to choose... If you want to stay in SS and MC than you can, and if you want to do something else than allow that as well. Even if they only allowed me to put that money in tbills, the return would be way more.
jaspony1 2 months ago
@MrJohnDoeTheThird They'll blame it on capitalism and greedy corporations.
strabes88 4 months ago
@MrJohnDoeTheThird The biggest ponzi scheme that has lifted millions out of poverty for nearly 80 years. get real.
Saebeck32 4 months ago
@Saebeck32 You realize what a Ponzi Scheme is, right? The point is that it's unsustainable, that's not to say it's never done any good to anyone.
MisterStrawman 3 months ago
@MisterStrawman Well then let's raise taxes 3% on the rich, back to what they paid in the 1990's. That seems like a reasonable fix.
Saebeck32 3 months ago
Yes, it;s in SERIOUS trouble... by 2044, it will only have 73 cents available to cover every dollar it pays out unless we take DRASTIC action now such as eliminating it entirely and thus guaranteeing the Bush era tax cuts to the top 2% income bracket are not touched. Seriously people, can't you see who is generating this propaganda and what their motivation is? Follow the money, not the opinions. Only danger to SS is if we listen to the self serving propaganda put out by the rich
MAINEPREPPER 5 months ago
@MAINEPREPPER
So you want people to live in the streets, eat cat food, and pretty much die?
Good to know.
mecher3k 4 months ago
@mecher3k What??? Are you saying we should increase payments or are you just spewing Koch?
MAINEPREPPER 4 months ago
@MAINEPREPPER
You're saying people should die if they are poor.
mecher3k 4 months ago
@mecher3k I am in favor of keeping Social Security. How is that saying people should die if they are poor?
MAINEPREPPER 4 months ago
@MAINEPREPPER
Oh right, you're in favor of making it private.
Which is the same them as saying poor people should die.
mecher3k 4 months ago
@mecher3k Wrong. I am NOT in favor of making it private. I am in favor of saving it, keeping it under government control, maintaining it as it is. It will need some minor adjustments as all programs do but it should not mean pushing the retirement start date later; it is not bankrupt, it has money, it is self-sustaining. The only danger it is in comes from wealthy people who do not need SS and want the government to rob it to pay for THEIR tax cuts.
MAINEPREPPER 4 months ago
@MAINEPREPPER I was being sarcastic in this comment about it being in SERIOUS trouble.
MAINEPREPPER 4 months ago
@MrJohnDoeTheThird there will be riots, and blood in the streets. But most westerners will die. Many do not even know how to cook for themselves, let alone grow and hunt their own food. To those of you who say they can trade for it, what does America make? Guns and Sex would be the main currencies, and unless people try to reopen factories and farms, with the poor survival knowledge of the populace, most will starve.
Rensune 5 months ago
The same youth that put Obama into power will never know what hit them when the system they were taught is necessary for retirement goes completely bust.
StateExempt 5 months ago
Bullshit. Raise the cap on social security and it's solvent into the distant future. Before social security the poorest demographic in the country were those above 65 - now they are the wealthiest. In those days before social security the elderly often had no relatives and died poor and miserable. If you say "then they should have saved money" - then you aren't dealing in reality.
luxmorningstar 5 months ago
@luxmorningstar False, the soc. sec. trust fund holds no cash. It is invested in gov't bonds. Otherwise known as a loan to the current taxpayer with the guatantee that future taxpayers will repay that "investment" with interest. This means that every dollar ever sent to soc. sec. was spent and is now a part of the 14 + trillion in debt we have. Actually, that's not true because that figure doesn't count the money we are obligated to pay our senior for loaning themselves tax dollars.
dlstb 5 months ago
"Laws of mathematics"? You mean the way the government has plundered social security for wars and tax cuts for the rich, stealing the money people have paid into for their entire lives, and then blame those said programs for creating deficits? Those laws of mathematics?
Magicwillnz 5 months ago
@Magicwillnz
LOL "tax cuts for the rich"
Every tax cut is by definition "For the rich" since they are the only ones who pay taxes. Poor people pay no taxes, thus they are unaffected by tax cuts. Saying "tax cuts for the rich" is like saying "maternity clothing for women". Well no duh its for women. Men can't get pregnant!
FartyFace 5 months ago
@FartyFace
Poor people pay sales tax.
I just killed your argument.
Magicwillnz 5 months ago
@Magicwillnz
Not every state has sales tax. Thats a state issue. States can't take social security money, only the federal government does that.
BAM your argument just got destroyed son haha. Nice to see you agree with me about income tax though. Anyone who says "tax cuts for the rich" when referring to income tax is a moron, wouldn't you agree?
FartyFace 5 months ago
@FartyFace
Well, your original statement is flawed. The middle class pay income tax. About half the country has little or no income to tax (via income tax, that is). Only about 0.1% is what we would think of as truly rich. OBVIOUSLY not just rich people pay taxes. What exactly is the point you are trying to make?
Magicwillnz 5 months ago
@Magicwillnz You can't have a tax cut without it benefiting the rich. Of course the rich are going to be better off from a tax cut than anyone else, because they pay most of the taxes.
ALL tax cuts by definition are "tax cuts for the rich". The only people that use the term "tax cuts for the rich" are partisan stooges trying to stir up class warfare. Its a good indicator of someones intelligence too. If they use the term its usually best to just ignore them.
FartyFace 5 months ago
@FartyFace
I don't get it. So I can't say "tax cuts for the rich" because the rich are always going to benefit from any tax break? You're making it so I can't differentiate a tax break that mostly affects high income (like capital gains tax and estate tax) and those that affect medium and low income (like cuts to sales tax, for example). Certainly different classes benefit disproportionately from different policies. How would you characterize such a tax break?
Magicwillnz 5 months ago
@Magicwillnz Its not possible to cut income tax rates without it effecting the rich more than everyone else. ALL income tax cuts are "for the rich" by definition.
Thats all I'm saying. All you have to say is "tax cut" you don't have to add "for the rich" on the end there because its redundant. The only reason people do this is to trick others into thinking the rich are getting some great deal at the expense of the poor. This is clearly not true when it comes to income tax cuts.
FartyFace 5 months ago
@FartyFace
But not even that is true. A cut to the top marginal income tax bracket literally only effects the wealthiest Americans. That has generally been the case with recent tax cuts which mostly reduced taxes on earnings on higher tax brackets. You could actually have an income tax break for the poor by only reducing taxes on income earned less than $300,000, for example. Such a tax cut would barely effect the rich.
Magicwillnz 5 months ago
@FartyFace Actually, the lionshare of taxes that they ultra-rich pay are not income taxes, they are capital gains taxes. The average american by contrast pays more in income taxes than capital gains. So a cut to the income tax, or income tax elimination will affect those who are poorer and don't have capital investments more than the "rich". Unfortunately, the investment of the rich in the market produces jobs and drives the market which is good for the enitre economy.
dlstb 5 months ago
@dlstb
You are talking specifically about Warren Buffet, a man who intentionally awards himself $0/year as a salary so he can bypass income tax and only pay capital gains taxes. MOST "rich people" are unable to do this. The lions share of the taxes are paid by small business owners and the like. People considered "rich" by Obama standards. Hell, even what you consider the "ultra rich" usually pull in some kind of salary. Go look up the CEO's on the forturne 500 list. They all draw salary
FartyFace 5 months ago
@FartyFace I am not specifically speaking about Warren. There are alot of people who live entirely off stock market gains and dividends. Also, those CEO's do draw a salary, but nearly all of them receive large bonuses that you and I do not get. Those bonuses are not taxable the same as income earned on an hourly wage because they are immune to the 15% FICA taxes that are normally paid.
I'm not advocating raising taxes, I'm advocating getting rid of this broken system and replacing it. Fair Tax
dlstb 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FartyFace I am not specifically speaking about Warren. There are alot of people who live entirely off stock market gains and dividends. Also, those CEO's do draw a salary, but nearly all of them receive large bonuses that you and I do not get. Those bonuses are not taxable the same as income earned on an hourly wage because they are immune to the 15% FICA taxes that are normally paid.
I'm not advocating raising taxes, I'm advocating getting rid of this broken system and replacing it. Fair Tax
dlstb 5 months ago
@MrJohnDoeTheThird ponzi indeed!
charms71 6 months ago
@MrJohnDoeTheThird
Wait a minute, what exact side of the coin are you supporting here? Would you wish that social security be shut down?
southparkiscool 6 months ago
At about 35-seconds the professor states that "they still have money in the banks so they are not bankrupt"
I am confused, what money is he talking about? Is promissory note from the treasury department 'money'? We are borrowing funds from other countries to pay for the SS & medicare/medicaid failures today. Not in a few years - Today.
They are bankrupt and it is disingenuous to pretend that their are "funds" or "accounts" propping these schemes up.
YuppiePrepper 6 months ago 12
This has been flagged as spam show
Social Security is not solvent. New congressional estimates say the trust fund that supports Social Security disability will run out of money by 2017, leaving the program unable to pay full benefits, unless Congress acts. About two decades later, Social Security’s much larger retirement fund is projected to run dry as well. It's time to REFORM ALL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANT PROGRAMS NOW -- ELSE WE LOSE THEM! How about the first step to get millionaires off SS and Medicare? And I'm GOP!
vechorik 6 months ago
@YuppiePrepper Those promissory notes are called BONDS! We borrowed the money from Social Security, China and everyone else and oneday we WILL pay it all back. Social Security is just the first of many bill collectors to come.
therichardking4242 1 month ago
@therichardking4242 Exactly my point.
Socialist Security has never been funded - ever.
It is a tax with money sent directly to the treasury to be instantly spent & always has been. And the fractional reserve banking system (let alone the hollow, moneyless Stock Market) flies in the face of his assertion that the banks have money.
The instant a bank opens it is insolvent because of fractional reserve banking. They stay open based on ever increasing obligation to repay debt... not his version
YuppiePrepper 1 month ago
@YuppiePrepper Actually, it's the funds that have been set aside for SS & Medicare. They have an accounts like your savings. Each year we put more in from tax revenues, but we lose more to pay outs. Hence, the deficits. They aren't bankrupt yet, but if not addressed they will be. It helps to understand how things work before trying to conclude things falsely.
nicklikethesoup 2 weeks ago
Is Social Security Bankrupt?
Man, that's a World Problem, they're all Bankrupt.
Draxis32 7 months ago
Seems we've got more projection and false data. *sigh* I think I'm done with these videos. They're becoming tiresomely repetitive.
debatablescientist 7 months ago
Rational good: How about we stop bush's tax cuts... use that money for social security?
Rational good: Stop the wars, use that money for social security.
Irrational bad: If you shut down social security might as well pass a group of legislation called Fuck Roosevelt lets go back to the Old Deal
Irrational stupid: Shut down social security so it doesn't get shut down.
Guess which one this fraud is saying we should do?
I love how he flinches before lying to the viewers.
ThatBlackPanda 8 months ago
@ThatBlackPanda If you raise taxes the economy will contract and unemployment will increase. There'll be less revenues to SS, not more. Fight middle eastern wars or Iran will get a nuclear arsenal and we'll have WWIII. No one will get SS because we'll all be dead. Solution: SS should be based on a life time of investments, not a transfer payment. An account that is yours and government can't take. If you're risk averse put it in CDs, treasuries or gold and silver. Keep fighting terror.
amerlibmov 8 months ago
@amerlibmov
You are right, because:
1. Bill Clinton had lower employment, Bush's tax cuts raised the employment level and we are not in a recession.
2. The revenues to SS were so small before we cut taxes. It is obvious that when you make less money, you have more to go around.
3. We are fighting Iran in the middle east cause It is obvious that Afghanistan and Iraq are just other names for Iran.
I have a personal question:
Why do you Libertarians hate Pres. Franklin Delano Roosevelt so much?:
ThatBlackPanda 8 months ago
@ThatBlackPanda I'm not a Libertarian but FDR's government spending policies, the same as Obama's could not end the first great depression. Just like Obama, he was a failure. The jobs of the 1990s were due to the desktop computer, cell phone and internet. Those machines were invented in the 1980s. Bill Clinton took credit but he didn't have anything to do with those jobs. The NATO v Iran/Syria war is dead ahead. We have to take them out now to avoid WWIII later.
amerlibmov 8 months ago
@amerlibmov
You give no evidence that FDR was a failure.
FDR without a doubt saved america from what you are trying to bring back.
People were dying in the streets, the gold standard was a failure.
FDR's New Deal created more jobs than any oil company x3.
He was able to spread the wealth in America, stimulate trade and fix the circular loan problem and redistributed the wealth nationally and internationally.
Your views have 0 evidence behind them,
Honestly you are either retarded or a troll.
ThatBlackPanda 8 months ago
@ThatBlackPanda The retarded are the ones who sling mud in a debate. Employement was never restored in the 1930s. It ranged from 12% to above 20% the entire decade. That's not a recovery. You have to look at the unemployment rate. Relying on # of jobs created is political spin that tells us nothing. Unless unemployment is below 5% the president hasn't accomplished anything. Barack Obama's unemployment rate has been 9.5 % or higher for 2.5 years. That's a miserable failure.
amerlibmov 8 months ago
@amerlibmov
Did you fail history class?
Unemployment peaked at 1933 under Hoover... a republican.
FDR took over from hoover and in the first 100 days implemented the new deal. By 1937 he brought unemployment down to 13% from it's 28% high, but later on the Republicans gained majority in the senate and house, stopped progress, and caused unemployment spiked up. When the progressives regained a political stance FDR's government took unemployment to a record 1.25% low by the time of his death.
ThatBlackPanda 8 months ago
@ThatBlackPanda Hoover didn't cut taxes on the right indexes though like Reaganomics does. He was using Democratic Party policies government spending policies mostly. That's why unemployment kept declining. The Keynesian model is only capable of restarting a bear market rally. That's what we're seeing right now. 1936 UE1 never broke even. The second dip began in 1937 after congress raised taxes, a stupid thing to do. Finally WWII ended the depression but at what an incredible cost.
amerlibmov 8 months ago
@amerlibmov
Reagan himself knew that "Reaganomics" could't work, that is why he spent his last two years reversing them and raising taxes. 1937, congress never raised taxes because the republicans refused to allow any new changes to pass, you are just making things up from speculation right now. FDR was the person who pushed America into WWII, one of the only just wars ever. Without the use of FDR's Bombshell, even with WWII, the world would still be in a lock of circular loans.
FDR>Shit>Reagan
ThatBlackPanda 8 months ago
@ThatBlackPanda Congress most assuredly did raise taxes circa 1935. That resulted in the double dip. Reagan never could control the Democrats insane desire to increase spending, so he agreed to raise taxes to appease them. No economic policy can raise revenues as fast as Democrats can raise spending. The very low unemployment rate of the 1980s and the extraordinary growth rate is a recovery that FDR never could equal. The stimulus package has failed, that' proof Keynesianism is a fraud.
amerlibmov 8 months ago
@ThatBlackPanda You are in the smae line of thinking that we can just hire the 14 million people into various government jobs to sit around and collect a paycheck, then unemployment would be at zero!! Its called a broken window fallacy. FDR prolonged the depression and we are still paying for the new deal. Wars dont boost the economy, that is the biggest economic myth ever created.
AroundSun 7 months ago
@AroundSun
That was the single most ignorant comment ever.
You can argue that FDR did not 100% stop the great depression but to say he prolonged it is just retarded. If you hire EVERYONE into government jobs just to sit around and collect paychecks... unemployment would be zero because EVERYONE would have a job. Not that I support this, it is just fact... but your conservative, you fail at facts. Wars do boost the economy due to increased production and employment. To recap; you are retarded.
ThatBlackPanda 7 months ago
@ThatBlackPanda He did prolong it. Nobody stepped in during the 1920 depression and it was corrected in 6 months. You act as if government stimulus spending is a NECESSARY part of the economy. You are also under the assumption that the free market is to blame for the boom and bust cycle, even though the fed is what creates bubbles and inflation. Wars do NOT boost the economy because the resources necessary to fund these jobs come from the taxpayers. You don't get nothing for nothing moron.
AroundSun 7 months ago
@ThatBlackPanda Now that you've failed ECO 101, lets see. Liberals are scared of facts. They have factaphobia. Everything they try to advocate fails and our economy is showing that. You idiots think that spending our way out of a spending induced crisis will work. You believe in politicians in washington, messiahs and angels that racked up a 14 digit debt and 15 digit unfunded liability. Liberals cant do anything without conservatives, if they could, they would form collectively voluntarily
AroundSun 7 months ago
@ThatBlackPanda Stop sucking FDR's dick and realize that Keynesianism is the problem not the solution. The man had well intentions and some of what he did WAS definitely necessary because the problem was brought on by the Fed. But the second bill of rights?? Are you kidding me? That would have turned the US into the USSA. We would probably be a third world country. If you don't know what I'm talking about I suggest you take a look. "Right to a home"? "Right to a vacation"? at what cost?
AroundSun 7 months ago
It's sad to say but no one will do anything to fix the problem until the system does go broke and everyone is thrown out on the street..............sigh.
Daisy4Loka 8 months ago
we def don't want anyone who has paid in and now has become disabled! we don't want them on the street! the new digital money has arrived..
TheAngryAmericanwon 10 months ago
@MrJohnDoeTheThird And then, I know what'll happen:They'll blame the rich again with their success and they'll push for legislation on more tax for the rich again and again.
AnarchisThinker 10 months ago
The ~100 year cycle between socialism and classical liberalism is fortunately moving toward the latter. A crash of the system might just be what people need to wake up, similar to the breakup of the Soviet Union. So fellow liberty-minded people, be optimistic! Far more has been done with far fewer people to advance the causes of liberty and equality.
waremi51 10 months ago
Political propoganda, Cliches, and irrelevant facts to sustain their narcisstic ideas that empower their self esteem. Appealing to emotions and kneejerk reactions while using irrelevant truths as an obscure way to try and deflect facts from your world view. Judging programs and laws by intentions rather than results. The triumph of faith and hope over wisdom and history. Unconstitutional viewpoints that represent collectivism over individualism for the common good. Its economic illiteracy
AroundSun 11 months ago
@vitamaltz: The inability to pay 100% of an obligation is the *definition* of bankruptcy. What "painless" policy changes did you have in mind? Increasing payroll taxes? Raising the retirement age?
anonymoususerguy 11 months ago
You guys are all a little deluded. Social Security will not be bankrupt in a few decades. It will simply have to pay out less than 100% of benefits to retirees. There will still be money in the system. Furthermore, the shortfall can be fixed by simple and fairly painless policy changes.
Prof. Davies concludes by saying that we need to start dismantling Social Security, which is not an idea supported by any data I've ever seen.
vitamaltz 11 months ago
Professor Davies knows this but neglects to mention it: the assets that remain in the social security fund -- assets that are declining every day -- are not "hard currency" assets. Rather, they are merely IOUs written by the general fund of the United States Treasury. There is no money in there, only a collection of written promises from the Treasury to repay money that was long ago borrowed. The surplus in Social Security is actually an asset used to improve the appearance of the US debt.
NOLAMarathon2010 11 months ago 3
just so few views ? this shows how dumb people are getting now ..
we are almost going to crash !
nepaliman 11 months ago 24
@nepaliman Early days my friend...give it time!
TheLibertyLion 11 months ago
@nepaliman LOL. Coz people are busy watching "Evolution of Dance" or some "Sex" video that gets MILLIONS of hits. Who gives a damn to serious, real & nice subjects?
TheArunsingh1 9 months ago
@nepaliman jeah but not cause of your social security. Just look at your budget for the military. If you look at all the spending for the military of the HOLE world, USA got like 45% this means you (USA) spend almost the same amount for the military as the HOLE world together. And now you talking about social security who makes you bankrupt -,- just ignorant
MareSwiss 1 month ago
What is this BS? It's already bankrupt, because the money is not in its own "trust fund"... it's in the general fund, which is in the red already every year. All there is "in the bank" are IOUs.
eagleeye1975 11 months ago 3