• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Social Security Fund to Be Empty by 2037

i have no premise, doug elmendorf does

as cbo, he's a mathematician

You do have a premise, a moral one. To wit, your premise is that changing the retirement age is a "betrayal" of the American people. Your words.

Your premise is flawed. The American people cannot "betray" themselves. The social security trust fund was promised to the people, yes, but the people pillaged it. To change the retirement age is hardly a "betrayal," it is the consequence of short-sighted policy.
 
You do have a premise, a moral one.

betrayal is the conclusion, aquinas, cbo laid the premise

To change the retirement age is hardly a "betrayal," it is the consequence of short-sighted policy.

too abstruse

ie, i wouldn't run on that platform if i were you

seeya at the polls
 
betrayal is the conclusion, aquinas, cbo laid the premise

Indeed, betrayal is the conclusion. The premise is that there is a moral obligation from the government to the beneficiaries of SS. This is flawed because, in reality, the beneficiaries of SS are the very same people who frittered it away. Thus there is no moral obligation and thus no betrayal.
 
...The American people cannot "betray" themselves...

There is no American people any more. There are the young and the seniors. The young will pay for the welfare of the seniors. There is nothing to negotiate. There is nothing to discuss. There will be no entitlement reform. The young will accept their yoke and the harness willingly. It is their karma.
 
If your goal is to destroy the faith that the American people have in government itself, allow Social Security to continue and eventually go broke. I can think of nothing that would shatter the social contract more than this one move.
 
What I find odd is that no mentions that the baby boomers will have started to die off in droves by 2037, hence cutting amount needed. The first baby boomers will be 90 by 2037 and the "youngest" will be 73... So unless our average age is gonna explode up, then the baby boomers will start to die off very soon, and minimizing the problem in the long term.
 
Formula: Do nothing about increasing numbers of illegals known for not paying into the soicial security fund + the fund is already loaned out ie., empty! + Americans are living longer drawing more than before from the now enpty pot + increasing number of jobs leaving the U.S.
Result: An overthrow of capitalism or to put it another way; the end of America as we know it. I don't care because I'm 63 so I'll selfishly take my money and die not caring about people behind me. God Bless America!
 
What I find odd is that no mentions that the baby boomers will have started to die off in droves by 2037, hence cutting amount needed. The first baby boomers will be 90 by 2037 and the "youngest" will be 73... So unless our average age is gonna explode up, then the baby boomers will start to die off very soon, and minimizing the problem in the long term.

Baby boomers lived pretty hard. They will die off pretty fast.
 
SS bankrupt? There was plenty of revenue for SS until the government stole it to pay for things like wars and stuff.
I agree. Gov't should keep its mitts out of it.

It's funny how some parrot the "ponzi scheme" argument when the SS program does not fit the definition of ponzi scheme. It's a government program not a fraudulent con game. It was adaquately funded until the rest of the government robbed it and the numbers can be adjusted to make it solvent forever.
It IS a ponzi scheme. Just because its transparent and gov't run doesn't make it fit the description any less so. A ponzi scheme is simply a system where you have more people putting into an account than you have taking out so as to pay out early investors.

SS only works if there is more people putting in than the people who are taking out. So it ONLY works if there is a constant population increase. Its EXACTLY the same system as a ponzi scheme except its a federally enforced scheme.

The main problem is that SS money does not generate any money besides what is put in my people. Most ponzi schemes invest the money, and are usually only caught when the investments go sour. SS is just a really bad ponzi scheme because there is no investment, there is no net gain and usually a net loss due to inflation.
 
It IS a ponzi scheme. Just because its transparent and gov't run doesn't make it fit the description any less so. A ponzi scheme is simply a system where you have more people putting into an account than you have taking out so as to pay out early investors.

SS only works if there is more people putting in than the people who are taking out. So it ONLY works if there is a constant population increase. Its EXACTLY the same system as a ponzi scheme except its a federally enforced scheme.
.

Wrong. The numbers can be easily adjusted to make up for fluctuations in population growth. Where is it written in stone that benifits must increase or remain constant? More recipients, fewer contributors, lower benifits If the government hadn't robbed the surplus and that money put in safe, conservative investments there would have been plenty of money to cover future benefits and fluctuations in population.
SS is not even close to being a ponzi scheme no matter how many times it's repeated. The problem with SS is that money collected was used to pay for other things.
 
Wrong. The numbers can be easily adjusted to make up for fluctuations in population growth.
what numbers will be adjusted?? You mean increase taxes so that people put more money in so people taking out now get paid? That doesn't solve the problem at all, it just makes it worse by pushing the problems down the road! That's what got us into this mess to begin with.

The problem is SS doesn't generate money. In fact, inflation and rising costs for living make the money worth less.

Where is it written in stone that benifits must increase or remain constant?
so you screw the people who put in 20 years ago? So if I contributed $100k in my life to SS, you'll only give me $50k to makeup for the losses??

More recipients, fewer contributors, lower benifits If the government hadn't robbed the surplus and that money put in safe, conservative investments there would have been plenty of money to cover future benefits and fluctuations in population.
its NOT invested, that's why its a really bad version of a ponzi scheme.

SS is not even close to being a ponzi scheme no matter how many times it's repeated. The problem with SS is that money collected was used to pay for other things.
The problem is not just that the money is spent its that SS would not generate money even if it wasn't spent.

Wasn't that part of the whole debate about privatization? That if it was privatized then companies could actually generate money with the funds?
 
Calling all young people:

Start lining up for the yoke and harness. Be orderly. Be quiet.
 
Back
Top Bottom