Is social security under attack?

Is social security under attack?




Video by Chad Ely
.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Is
• social
• security
• under
• attack

[MAINEPREPPER]

@elwood64151 SS collected a huge surplus of money back in the 80s. Ronald Reagan "borrowed" that money to pretend we had a surplus to justify tax cuts to the rich. Pay that money back and this system is solid until 2047; after that it will be only 25% under-funded, requiring an additional adjustment on the FICA rate. People who have put little or nothing into SS are falling for this nonsense and that's exactly what Wall Street wants; they want YOUR money in their hands.

[MAINEPREPPER]

He nails it on the head when he says it's under attack because Wall Street is trying to get their hands on even more of our money. Their greed knows no bounds. This is why they are playing chicken little here "Ponzi Scheme" they shriek, "Broke system" they howl. Sadly they are also playing to a growing number of selfish individuals who think government is like a cafeteria; you only pay for what you want when you want it and then it should be cheaper than dirt. Idiots.

[elwood64151]

I become eligible for benefits in 2048.

Look, the fact is, SS is a pyramid scheme. If you or I created a retirement fund like SS, we'd go to jail. The government creates it and forces us to join, or we go to prison for tax fraud.

I want to use my SS money to provide for myself. I actually have a video on doing just that, if you care to look. It is not the government's place to provide for me, I am quite capable of providing for myself.

[elwood64151]

What we have here is a clear philosophical difference about the role of government in society. y belief is that government should only be involved in those activities that the free market cannot provide (where charging each individual for the level of service they receive--military, police, fire, courts, etc). I don't believe they should be involved in retirement AT ALL.

[niriafanorev]

He's probably framing this within the context of the demographic aging trend--if the older population continues to proportionally increase, it will become more difficult to finance Social Security benefits because of the worker:retiree ratio. By 2046, the government would have to a) raise the age of eligibility b) cut the level of benefits, c) increase payroll taxes, or d) allow some level of privatization. Note that he says SS benefits are "rock-solid" UNTIL 2046.

[niriafanorev]

In this case, Kucinich makes a valid point by drawing parallels to Chile under Pinochet (whose policy was large-scale privatization of the benefits system).

[niriafanorev]

I think the problem isn't necessarily the SS benefits; it's Congress' and the Bush administration's spending patterns (scaling back benefit programs while increasing military expenditures). I don't think "personal retirement accounts" (i.e., privatization) would ever be politically viable because your retirement fund would basically depend on patterns within the stock market.

[elwood64151]

Actually, I don't like Ron Paul. I do not like Social Security because my retirement is no business of the government's. If you saved for retirement, you get to live off your savings. If you didn't, you get to continue to work. Social Security was ratified on a "as long as the money is there" basis. The money won't be there when I retire. Get me out!

[niriafanorev]

I'm really sorry for that comment, I just feel very strongly about maintaining Social Security benefits. I'm interested to know why you oppose it so strongly.

[niriafanorev]

Oh, boy, another Ron Paul fellatio-fest.