Social Security is not “Insurance”

Vessol

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
6,237
Social Security is not “Insurance”

Perhaps the biggest media story of 2010 was the influence of Tea Party voters on the congressional landscape. The new congress comes to Capitol Hill with a mandate to end profligate spending and restore fiscal sanity, we are told. But when the House and Senate convene in January, the newly elected members will face tremendous pressure to maintain spending levels for entitlement programs. Even the most modest proposals to trim Social Security or Medicare spending will be met with howls of indignation and threats of voter revolt. Legislators who propose any kind of means testing or increased retirement ages can expect angry visits from senior citizen lobbyists ready to fund a candidate back home who supports the status quo.

But millions of Americans now realize that the status quo is an illusion that will not last even another 10 or 20 years. The federal government cannot continue to spend a trillion dollars more than it collects in revenue each year, because we are running out of creditors. Fiscal reality is setting in, and the consequences may be grim even if Congress finds the courage to take decisive action now.

Courage begins with a commitment to see things as they are, rather than how we wish they were. When it comes to Social Security, we must understand that the system does not represent an old age pension, an “insurance” program, or even a forced savings program. It simply represents an enormous transfer payment, with younger workers paying taxes to fund benefits. There is no Social Security trust fund, and you don’t have an “account.” Whether you win or lose the Social Security lottery is a function of when you happened to be born and how long you live to collect benefits. Of course young people today have every reason to believe they will never collect those benefits.

Notice that neither political party proposes letting people opt out of Social Security, which exposes the lie that your contributions are set aside and saved. After all, if your contributions really are put aside for your retirement, the money is there earning interest, right? If your money is in your “account,” what difference would it make if your neighbor chooses not to participate in the program? The truth, of course, is that your contributions are not put aside. Social Security is simply a tax. Like all taxes, the money collected is spent immediately as general revenue to fund the federal government. But no administration will admit that Social Security is nothing more than an accounting ledger with no money. You will collect benefits only if future tax revenues materialize as hoped; the money you paid into the system is long gone.

My hope is that at least some members of the new Congress will cut through the distortions and see Social Security as it really is. The best way to fix the impending Social Security crisis is also the simplest: allow younger individuals to opt out of the program and use their tax savings to invest privately as they see fit. This is the true private solution. Your money has never been safe in the government’s hands, and it never will be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdafLIQfWlY

http://www.infowars.com/social-security-is-not-insurance/
 
SSi is not an entitlement program.

I have been paying into the program for over 30 years.

When I retire, I damn well better get that investment back.
 
I wonder how Bernie Madoff's investors felt when his mutual funds were doing so well? If anybody had told them it was nothing more than a Ponzi scheme, they would have ignored the skeptics. Same thing with Social Security, it has done well since its inception, disregarding the increase in the tax rate from 1/2% to 12.5% over the years. So people don't believe it will ever collapse. Denial and delusion. Just keep raising the tax rate, lower benefits, increase retirement age. All will be well. A problem handed to the next generation is a problem solved.
 
SSi is not an entitlement program.

I have been paying into the program for over 30 years.

When I retire, I damn well better get that investment back.

Why do you say that when you know you're not going to get a dime of it back.

It was not an investment in any means of the words, it was a simple tax.

Honestly, I don't feel bad for anyone who doesn't get their social security. They are the ones whom have accepted it and done nothing about it for so long.
 
Why do you say that when you know you're not going to get a dime of it back.

It was not an investment in any means of the words, it was a simple tax.

Honestly, I don't feel bad for anyone who doesn't get their social security. They are the ones whom have accepted it and done nothing about it for so long.


Yeah I'm only 24 and I know I'm not going to be getting it. The sooner the gravy train stops, the better.
 
SSi is not an entitlement program.

I have been paying into the program for over 30 years.

When I retire, I damn well better get that investment back.

I have to ask, in all seriousness, is there a single goddamned government program that you DON'T support? You sure as fuck don't strike me as someone who understands or approves of Dr. Paul's stances.
 
SSi is not an entitlement program.

I have been paying into the program for over 30 years.

When I retire, I damn well better get that investment back.

regular social security is a tax, forget about these notions about contributions. for small business at least the legal def is "self employment tax"
SSI is pure welfare, not based on taxes or so called contributions
 
Why do you say that when you know you're not going to get a dime of it back.

It was not an investment in any means of the words, it was a simple tax.

Honestly, I don't feel bad for anyone who doesn't get their social security. They are the ones whom have accepted it and done nothing about it for so long.

1. You make the mistake of assuming I sit on my hands, and dam not an active part of We the People.

2. SSi is fine and in good health, despite the GOP fear mongering.
 
I have to ask, in all seriousness, is there a single goddamned government program that you DON'T support? You sure as fuck don't strike me as someone who understands or approves of Dr. Paul's stances.

There are plenty of programs and policies I do not support. Perhaps if I manage to post here for a few years without getting banned, you will become familiar with my very complicated political ideology.

SSi is not a welfare program (one of those I do not agree with in it's present form, BTW). The program assists our Nation's disabled and our Elders as well.
 
sometimes investments lose value.

in this case, you can pretty much be sure of it, so plan for it.

Even if I live for thirty years after I retire, my investment will indeed be made back.

My 401K and other retirement financial plans will merely add to it.
 
regular social security is a tax, forget about these notions about contributions. for small business at least the legal def is "self employment tax"
SSI is pure welfare, not based on taxes or so called contributions

Welfare was a good idea gone bad. It was intended merely as a parachute for people who had fallen on hard times until they could get back on their feet. The system needs a major overhaul so we do not have three, or more, generations of welfare recipients.

SSi, however, is not a welfare program. It was intended, and is used, as a means of assisting our Elder population and those unable to earn a living due to handicaps.

And before someone else jumps on my ass for my opinions...

Yes, there is gaff and abuses in the SSi system (and Medicaid/Medicare) that need to be weeded out. But one doesn't repair a leaky roof by burning the house down.

BTW, you contradict yourself. You state it is a tax first, and then not a tax. Which is it, in your opinion?
 
When the Ponzi blows social insurance will become poverty assurance.
 
Welfare was a good idea gone bad. It was intended merely as a parachute for people who had fallen on hard times until they could get back on their feet. The system needs a major overhaul so we do not have three, or more, generations of welfare recipients.

SSi, however, is not a welfare program. It was intended, and is used, as a means of assisting our Elder population and those unable to earn a living due to handicaps.

And before someone else jumps on my ass for my opinions...

Yes, there is gaff and abuses in the SSi system (and Medicaid/Medicare) that need to be weeded out. But one doesn't repair a leaky roof by burning the house down.

BTW, you contradict yourself. You state it is a tax first, and then not a tax. Which is it, in your opinion?

How is thievery ever a good idea no matter how noble the intentions? I will be showing up at your house in a week, armed to the teeth, to confiscate (sorry, your 'social obligation'), your labor and money to give to another individual who I deem is 'needy'. Since people are unable to help these people by themselves (says I - the Government), I will demand this tribute in the name of the troubled, slice off half of it for myself and other petty bureaucrats, and then by my good natured self, give them what is left over of the tribute. After-all, I the Government and the socialist will decry everyone who is against State-Welfare to be against helping people! I presume that only the Government and the State can ever do anything, for I am the quintessential socialist du jour.

Welfare was never a good idea, and it didn't go bad, at least not for the State. It served its purpose. To grow the State, bring in more revenue, and make people dependant. You are mistaken if you even believe for a second that Welfare was ever supposed to help the troubled, seeing as the troubled were all ready being helped by individuals, mutual aid societies, and all sorts of voluntary charitable associations, as well documented here:

http://www.amazon.com/Mutual-Aid-We...8417/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293748533&sr=8-1

PS: Social Security presumes that as individuals we are too stupid to take care of ourselves (If you believe the motif the Government sells you). Personally, the Government can fuck off.
 
Last edited:
Welfare was a good idea gone bad....
No, it was not. Even if you don't accept AED's argument that its purpose was the expansion of the state, it was a naive and utopian idea at best. The fraud, abuse and long-term moral hazards SHOULD have been foreseen. It will be a "good" idea when people stop being people.
 
Axis,

I can see you are still learning. So am I. But the difference is I can see these programs for what they are, and you still don't.

BTW, if these programs are good for the people, then why were they not instituted at the founding of our country?

I'll give you a hint, it has to do with the constitution.
 
Back
Top