End of social security in 2016

They make enough money selling weapons to other nations to keep us all in luxury.

Isn't Social Security funded solely by our FICA taxes?
How could it end then? Would they abolish FICA taxes then?

The reason the social security fund will run out is that the number of retirees will far exceed workers paying into the system.

They would have to, or openly admit to stealing.

cicerone, that certainly is happening in other countries where the birth rate is declining, but surely not in the U.S.
The obvious reason would be - as roger mentioned already - the government dipping into social security funds to support their penchant for military toys.

It's projected to hit insolvency in 2034.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/248816-social-security-projected-to-hit-insolvency-by-2034

This is, of course if everything continues exactly as it is now, with the population and inflation and other economic projections being accurate. I wouldn't count on the accuracy of projections that far into the future, let alone unexpected events and developments.

I agree. Since we dropped 11 Million Full Time jobs in 2008-9, that cushion between the present and the date Social Security runs out got damaged. Since we are adding Full Time jobs at a much higher rate now, (13 Million since the recession ended in Jan 2010), that cushion is likely to get longer and longer as time goes on.

I agree; economic projections are a fool's game, because it's not based on science. Hokey pokey guesstimates.

Economists are like psychiatrists. Really good about explaining what happened; a little shaky on predictions.

Request denied. We are not going to disarm the troops and let the bad guys conquer us.

President Bush tried to fix that back in 2005, but the Democrats blocked it because they preferred seeing Social Security go bankrupt over having a Republican claim credit for fixing it.

Giving the military trillions of dollars more than they even need is ridiculous. But people think we are weakening the military to try giving them a reasonable budget.

Privatizing or giving vouchers is just another way of giving big business access to our money. Within a few years they would have nearly all of it and citizens would be waiting until they turned a hundred (not as much exaggeration as it may seem) to draw anything. There will always be enough money for SS if the politicians quit stealing it and the money is actually used as it is intended. Other ways of adding to the fund is by rebuilding infrastructure and raising the minimum wage, instead of giving it all up to the military-industrial complex. People making money pay money.

The military needs more than what they are currently being given.



The Left intentionally deprives the military of weapons that they need both to save their own lives and to win wars against America's enemies.

The result is dead Americans and a retreat for freedom and democracy around the globe.



Privatizing Social Security is only one proposal for reforming it. It is a method that would actually work. However, it was not necessarily what would have been done in 2005 had the Democrats not prevented Social Security from being saved.



That could have been the reform enacted in 2005 if the Democrats hadn't undermined the push to fix Social Security.

If we cut the military budget just think of all the billionares who would be short changed. It would cut off the trickle down we poor people receive from the 1%.

We spend more on military than the next several nations combined. More than for anything else in the budget. Bloated is the word for the military budget. Time to make some major changes and bring it under control.

Wouldn't want the Waltons to pay as much tax as a Walmart checker.

Agree; our military budget is too big and wasteful. That money can be used to improve our infrastructure, our schools, and health care.

Our military does more than the militaries of the entire rest of the world combined.



Our troops are at grave risk because Liberals have already dramatically cut weapons systems that are needed in order for them to survive on the battlefield. If we don't start spending more, we are going to start seeing our troops massacred and start seeing a rollback of freedom and democracy around the world.

One example of this is air superiority. Right now we have fewer than 200 F-22 fighters throughout the entire world because Liberals wouldn't let us buy any more. If we had a large war right now, we would have to choose which parts of the world we would provide air cover for, and which places we would just let enemy aircraft operate unchallenged.

We might have a solution on the way with the new crop of stealth bombers, which could in theory be filled with air-to-air missiles and fly into the battlefield downing enemy planes, but that will depend on this concept working, and it will depend on new spending going ahead to buy these new stealth bombers.

It was a Turkish version of the F-16 that shot down that plane over Turkey. Granted the F-16 is older, but it's still good and Russia has just introduced its first stealth aircraft, just in the last couple of years. We had stealth aircraft up in the air in the 70s and we've gone through several generations of stealth aircraft. Russia is just getting around to making one now.

We have air superiority over the Russians. I'm not for big military cutbacks, but the image of the military being deprived of the best weapons is false.