Social Security?

What do you mean? Are you implying that my position is not a serious one?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What do you mean? Are you implying that my position is not a serious one?

No, I'm implying that it's so ignorant that I am surprised that people have the patience to take it seriously.

Social security is fundamentally flawed and is a much bigger ticking time bomb than the economic downturn you are trying to use to discredit the privatization proposals. The problem is not 30 or 50 years away, the problem starts around 2017 when payments would exceed revenue.

The problems with social security are no "sham" and without significant reform it would cause much greater problems than the economic downturn you are using as an argument against privatization (as if the government is doing any better with our money right now).

But like I said, I lack the patience to deal with this kind of ignorance combined with this kind of demagoguery and just want to point out that it's not "guts" that are needed to confront this kind of nonsense, it's time and patience.

You are incorrect on this issue, sir. Most economists agree that SS will be perfectly fine FAR beyond 2017; 2041 is the date commonly associated with the inability for the program to meet it's financial obligations. I would ask you to provide links to back up your position; will you do so?

If not, I'm afraid I cannot continue the conversation with you, for you are simply incorrect. I'm afraid you have bought into the Republican party line, and probably should do some more research on the issue.

The report also estimates, as it did last year, that come 2017 Social Security will no longer be taking in enough payroll tax to pay all promised benefits and will need to tap the special-issue bonds that make up its trust fund. In order to make good on repaying those bonds, the federal government will have to borrow more money, raise taxes, cut spending elsewhere or reduce benefits.

In order to make good on repaying those bonds, the federal government will have to borrow more money, raise taxes, cut spending elsewhere or reduce benefits.

I have figured out your error in thinking.

It's erroneous to say that in 2017 we will somehow have an SS problem; we will not. What will happen is that the true depth of our deficits will be revealed, as there simply will not be any more money to steal from the program, and the bills will come due.

I'm afraid I must contend that your lack of understanding of this issue, and your error in the dates involved, betrays ignorance - but not mine.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

SS is hardly the biggest of our worries at this time, and it was never anything but a sham issue.

I'm amazed that anyone's trying to discuss this seriously with you. They don't need "guts", just a lot of patience (more than I possess at least).

Some free-market economists, such as Thomas Sowell, and the Cato Institute[30] have argued that national social security systems, such as the Social Security system in the United States and the National Insurance system in the United Kingdom, are actually large-scale Ponzi schemes. In economic terms, these pension systems are often referred to as "pay-as-you-go" or unfunded national pension plans.

Sowell and others point out that, under these national systems, incoming payments, made up of taxes and/or other kinds of non-voluntary "contributions," are neither saved nor invested. Instead, current contributions (from one set of individuals, due benefits at a later time) are used to pay for current benefits (to another set of individuals). The critics of Social Security say that as North American demographics trend toward more pensioners and fewer workers this "pay-as-you-go" system has begun to show its inherent flaws. Therein lies the basis for the Ponzi scheme metaphor: that the system relies on a steady flow of new contributors, just as a Ponzi scheme relies on a steady flow of new "investors."

Nevertheless, retirement programs run by national governments are significantly different from a typical Ponzi scheme in a number of ways:

* Retirement systems, like Social Security, are not blatantly fraudulent. In a genuine Ponzi scheme, the perpetrators falsely claim that there is some business that generates the promised revenues. In Social Security, people know where the money comes from, and actuaries supply written predictions of future cash in-flows and out-flows.
* Retirement systems promise a stipend to the country's retired persons, not the quick and exorbitant profits to current investors that Ponzi schemes invariably offer.
* Retirement systems rely on the taxing power of the state to ensure continuous funding, as opposed to voluntary investor contributions.
* Retirement systems are in many ways insurance rather than investment systems. A person who dies before retirement gets no money back (regardless of what he/she paid in). Someone who lives to a very old age continues to get payments regardless of the amount of money he/she has paid in.

You can make a reasonable, valid argument that SS in its current setup is a necessary evil for the safety net it provides. You cannot consider it a good investment without looking like a fool. Your case is beyond absurd and is showcasing your ignorance of the subject more than anything else.

* Retirement systems, like Social Security, are not blatantly fraudulent. In a genuine Ponzi scheme, the perpetrators falsely claim that there is some business that generates the promised revenues. In Social Security, people know where the money comes from, and actuaries supply written predictions of future cash in-flows and out-flows.

* Retirement systems promise a stipend to the country's retired persons, not the quick and exorbitant profits to current investors that Ponzi schemes invariably offer.

* Retirement systems rely on the taxing power of the state to ensure continuous funding, as opposed to voluntary investor contributions.

* Retirement systems are in many ways insurance rather than investment systems. A person who dies before retirement gets no money back (regardless of what he/she paid in). Someone who lives to a very old age continues to get payments regardless of the amount of money he/she has paid in.

It wouldn't be a signature 'Bill attack post!' without the arrogant bullshit at the end. Love it. Always enjoy it when you point it at others, and I enjoy when you aim it my way too.

Cycloptichorn

I've mentioned in this thread raising the retirement age - which I think we can all agree will be inevitable - and we may have to raise caps or monies as well.

Well, if a private company did what the government is doing, would it be financially sound, cyclops? No is my answer, nothing even close. It is fraud, plain and simple, perpetrated onto the American people.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I've mentioned in this thread raising the retirement age - which I think we can all agree will be inevitable - and we may have to raise caps or monies as well.

No. We don't all agree. This is only true under the current system. I fully believe that the system could be operated at current or even lower funding levels, provide just as much benefit if not more, without increasing the age of retirement.

Its not very honest when most of the people think their money is invested into their fund, to be drawn out later, or at least that is what I think most people think, or what most people think it has been represented to be. The money isn't there, its been spent already, not on anything of value, the money is gone. And could a private pension do that without it being fraudulant? I don't think so, cyclops?