The Prof
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,828
- Reaction score
- 1,808
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I disagree with your premise.
i have no premise, doug elmendorf does
as cbo, he's a mathematician
I disagree with your premise.
i have no premise, doug elmendorf does
as cbo, he's a mathematician
You do have a premise, a moral one.
To change the retirement age is hardly a "betrayal," it is the consequence of short-sighted policy.
betrayal is the conclusion, aquinas, cbo laid the premise
...The American people cannot "betray" themselves...
The premise is that there is a moral obligation from the government to the beneficiaries of SS.
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.
I agree. Gov't should keep its mitts out of it.SS bankrupt? There was plenty of revenue for SS until the government stole it to pay for things like wars and stuff.
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.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.
.
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.Wrong. The numbers can be easily adjusted to make up for fluctuations in population growth.
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??Where is it written in stone that benifits must increase or remain constant?
its NOT invested, that's why its a really bad version of a ponzi scheme.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.
The problem is not just that the money is spent its that SS would not generate money even if it wasn't spent.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.
Calling all young people:
Start lining up for the yoke and harness. Be orderly. Be quiet.