Posted on 01/24/2005 10:20:14 AM PST by jmc813
Social Security reform promises to be the biggest domestic issue this year in Washington, but most of the proposals are nothing more than flim-flam. The only honest solution to the future insolvency of the program is for Congress to stop spending so much money. Unless Congress makes real cuts in spending-- and stops spending Social Security taxes on completely unrelated programs-- millions of Americans simply will not receive even a fraction of the money they paid into Social Security. Ignore the rhetoric about tax increases and cuts in benefits, as though you are to blame for the problem! All Social Security obligations could be met if Congress did not spend so much on other things.
In the 1930s, Social Security was presented to the American people as a social insurance program, with individuals paying a monthly “premium” in exchange for retirement benefits later. It was supposed to be a forced savings program, based on the assumption that some people would be unable or unwilling to save for their older years. Seven decades later, however, the ratio of younger working people to older retirees has changed dramatically, exposing the Ponzi-like congressional raid on the system itself. What has not changed, however, is our willingness to accept the notion that the government should force us to save for our older years.
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 will be there earning interest, right? If your money is put away in a trust fund account with your name on it, 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 revenues to fund the federal government. The Social Security trust fund does not exist, and Social Security “surpluses” are nothing more than an accounting ledger showing that contributions exceeded benefits paid for a given calendar year-- not that the excess was put aside. Social Security benefits are paid each year from general funds, like other federal programs. Since these programs and overall spending keep increasing, the government can’t give up any sources of tax revenue. Allowing people to opt out of Social Security would force the federal government to admit it has been stealing money from Social Security for decades.
The administration speaks of private accounts, but government-managed investment of Social Security funds is not privatization at all. True capitalism by definition operates without government interference, and we should oppose further government involvement in the financial markets. After all, which government officials will decide what stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or other investment vehicles are approved? Which politicians will you trust to decide what your portfolio may contain? Imagine the lobbyists fighting over which special interests will have their favored investments approved for Social Security accounts. Political favoritism, rather than market performance, will determine what investments are allowed, and Social Security in essence will become a huge source of taxpayer-provided investment capital.
If the administration truly wants to give people more control over their retirement dollars, why not simply reduce payroll taxes and let them keep their own money 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. Governments spend money; it’s just their nature. It is preposterous to believe our government is capable of simply sitting on a huge pile of money without touching it because it’s earmarked for one purpose or another. No matter what politicians promise, Social Security reform will not change the fact that your money is taken from your paycheck and sent to Washington, where it will be spent.
social security was supposed to be old age insurance. In reality, it has been functioning like a ponzi/pyramid scheme since the inception of the program ... which is illegal ... except for the social security program.
Pon·zi scheme ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pnz)
n.
An investment swindle in which high profits are promised from fictitious sources and early investors are paid off with funds raised from later ones.
Ponzi scheme = social security system.!
Why does it have to be forced? I'm being a political realist. Otherwise, nothing will be changed.
how do you know I haven't been "involved" in pushing for ideas like these for the past 20 years?
obviously some of these things should have been done 10-20 years ago ... but it didn't happen ... now, at least it is being talked about again.
Most of us have been describing it that way since we passed puberty.
social security was supposed to be old age insurance.
No, that's the lie they told to nationalize private retirement programs. Old commie FDR and cronies never actually believed their own lies.
Too late. The horse has been stolen, the barn burned and the thief sits in Washington D.C., laughing at us.
I noticed you resisted the urge to play make believe.
now, at least it is being talked about again
It has been talked about non stop by many of us.
if we don't raise the age ... with the average boomer living until their mid 80s ... we just pass more of the problem unto future generations ... the ponzi scheme just continues with the govt. raising the FICA tax and/or securing more revenue (i.e. other direct and indirect taxing) to pay for it.
I don't want to rob my kids and grandkids generation ... just because other generations have robbed my generation legally through FDR's screw deal.
and what has been accomplished?
Just because you have no imagination doesn't mean it can't be done.
the ponzi scheme just continues with the govt. raising the FICA tax and/or securing more revenue (i.e. other direct and indirect taxing) to pay for it.
They will do both if allowed.
I don't want to rob my kids and grandkids generation ...
Neither do I. Or any other thinking person or group who has been working on the problem for decades.
just because other generations have robbed my generation legally through FDR's screw deal.
Other generations were robbed too.
You propose having the government repudiate their commitment to some citizens. Why are your grandchildren any better than them?
If you insist on keeping this system you claim to hate, the right way to raise the age is for people coming in now. All those who have been promised should get what was promised. New entries should be told a different age. That way we could achieve this goofy "actuarial balance" you keep talking about without further eroding trust in government.
It is being talked about today because of us. That is the accomplishment.
It was the third rail, it is no more. If you don't think that's an accomplishment, you don't get it.
The only honest solution to the future insolvency of the program is for Congress to stop spending so much money.
Yeah and the best way to stop the hemmorhaging of our tax dollars is for the Congress(Senate and House members)to stop the utter corruption of their lying and stealing of these tax dollars for their pork barrel friends!
Do you as the elected to the U.S.Congress wonder who is to blame, take a look at yourself in a mirror!
Surprise, Surprise!
So if you vote against all the spending you are still guilty by association?
so ... what would you suggest be done with the Social Security system?
Maybe something along the lines of "an IOU you write to yourself is worthless".
It needs to be privatized. Totally.
It has been done in other countries. No one has had their promises repudiated in those cases.
Chile had a notable success.
I'm not saying it would be easy to do so in a country where half the people want a socialistic nanny state. But it can be done if hard choices are made.
Many of the suggestions you made have already been suggested by others for a long time. They have merit.
BUT....your suggestion that government repudiate their committment to it's citizens is so wrong it needs to be challenged at every turn. People are cynical enough already.
Calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme is actually unfair to Charles Ponzi. Sure he ran a scam, but he never forced anyone to participate at gunpoint.
thanks true ... i'm sorry
in Lake Jackson TX? That is where I live right now.
Angleton, near Houston a long time ago, before he tried running for President. Of course, my aunt was one of his supporters.
well ... i would agree with you ... but the chances of that happening in the near term are less than a tsunami hitting Kansas.
Only way the current system would be scrap overnight/in a short term period ... is total financial collapse. And the politicians still wouldn't do it ... they would print alot of worthless paper.
Also ... unfortunately ... too many republicans don't want to do anything ... becbause they want to be re-elected. My republican congressman included (basically he the kerry line of don't do anything) ... and both of my republican PA senators probably won't do anything (especially Arlen and Santorum has gone soft on the issue ... oh, and is up for re-election in 2006).
That is exactly the topic, and you are well aware I am male.
Which debate class taught you that name calling and misdirecting the discussion was a good technique? Intelligent mature adults learn those tactics don't work by the time they graduate high school.
Why do you keep pinging me to threads to learn some "Facts" when you can't defend or even comprehend the facts that are in the articles. Do you actually read beyond the headlines or is that too difficult for you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.