Koch Bros are trying to destroy social security through misinformation, Must watch video!

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by David9176

 

Bernie Sanders is an unabashed socialist. He is full of crap. If you believe that SS has a $2.2 trillion surplus then I have some swamp land for you to buy.

Why is Sanders against privatization? Because SS is a huge slush fund that has been raided over the years by pigs such as him. He doesn't want you to cut off his supply of graft money.

You all are so very misinformed as to the privatization plan. But that is to be expected here on ATS, I have realized. You react hysterically to half-facts and sensational headlines and scream out loud without knowing what it is you are screaming about. Real mob mentality, pitchforks and burning torches running up the hill.:shk:

What is privatization?

First of all, it is VOLUNTARY. Nobody is forcing anybody to join.

Second, it is only PARTIAL. You cannot put your entire contribution into the fund; only up to a certain percent.

And, your decision is reversible, if you decide to.

Now, what is wrong with people being given the choice on what to do with their own money? Why? Because you would be taking your own money out of the politician's hands, and controlling it yourself.

So for the very meek among you, feel free to let the gov control your money and your lives. You are incapable of knowing what is best for you....you better leave that up to the gov.

But for the fighter, the patriot, the aware, here is a chance for you to get back some control of your own lives. Don't be fooled by the scare tactics the Sander's and the David's use on you. Make your *own* mind up.

Snake in the grass. Pretty obvious the super rich have been taking the money from American people to themselves. with privatization they will take that money into wall street.

Pretty obvious what will happen. People will lose there SS and it will go into the hands of the super rich just because they want more money.


Greed is the master of Capitalism. You serve greed a sin to God. You can not serve Greed and God same time.

Let's say you worked for 50 yrs and paid into SS all those eligible yrs. You retire in your late 60's, and die the next day.

What happens to your SS contributions? Bye bye, thank you very much for the generous gift to the gov.

With privatization, you can pass your contributions on to your heirs.

Here are some examples of successful privatization:

Social Security
Empowering Workers: The Privatization of Social Security in Chile
by José Piñera

"After 15 years of operation, the results speak for themselves. Pensions in the new private system already are 50 to 100 percent higher--depending on whether they are old-age, disability, or survivor pensions--than they were in the pay-as-you-go system."

Privatizing Social Security the Right Way
by Laurence J. Kotlikoff

"Unless Social Security benefits are drastically reduced or the system is privatized, taxpayers can expect to see Social Security payroll taxes raised by 50 percent—bringing total payroll taxes, including Medicare taxes, to as high as 25 percent. Full privatization, unlike its alternatives, could achieve all of the legitimate goals of Social Security while accelerating economic growth."

Social Security Privatization: A Personal View
by Roger M. Clites

"When I retired in 1991 I elected to withdraw only interest from my TIAA-CREF account and leave the principal untouched until I was required by law to begin drawing it down. (That occurred a few years ago.) That interest, on just 22 years of investments, was greater than my Social Security check, which was based on a lifetime of work. The investments in private businesses paid off far better than the taxes taken for Social Security."

SS

reply to post by David9176


If SS is so solvent, with such a large surplus, then tell me why it is a major part of every discussion on the economy? I mean, if it's a non-issue, then why not just let it sit there and do it's job?

Answer me that. Ask Bernie what's up with that.

At this point, social security is useless

Originally posted by origamiandurbanism

Social Security is NOT a ponzi scheme. It seems like this is repeated over and over again, but people I guess don't understand what the hell a ponzi scheme even is. When people completely mislabel it with that word, it's like a way not to even have a discussion on it. It's ridiculous.

I would suggest you read up on Ponzi schemes, then. Wikipedia, that slime pit of horribly wrong information, even has it right. And uses simple explanations and small words so anyone can understand it. Anyone with a smidgen of intelligence will be able to immediately draw a parallel to how Social Security works.

But, if you don't like Ponzi scheme, how about pyramid scheme?

/TOA

Ponzi scheme, pyramid scheme, neither one applies to Social Security. It is blatantly untrue, completely false, made up, a lie started by the right wing. This is just a repeat of previous posts on here -

- Social security is not a fraud, people know what it is.
- It has helped millions of Americans. Americans that would otherwise be living on the streets.
- It is a "social safety net" NOT a retirement plan (this is for all the "why can't the government let me keep my own money for retirement? posts).
- Ponzi scheme, pyramid scheme, etc. work by duping a group of people and funneling that money to the top (ie, one or very few people). How is that similar to SS?

SS is not perfect, needs to be revamped, etc. but by calling it a ponzi scheme it makes any sort of healthy discussion of the topic practically impossible. Which I think was the intention behind it.

Isn't it interesting that we continually hear the words "Ponzi scheme" in relation to social security all across the internet these days? It sort of reminds me of the Obama death panel talk.

Do you guys ever think that the "experts" on TV and in the newspapers might just not have your best interests in mind? Just look at the OP in this thread for proof of that.

reply to post by origamiandurbanism


Ponzi Scheme definition:

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned."

Social Security takes money from new workers and pays to old workers. It's a ponzi scheme.

Even if social security had a surplus, which is laughable, it still is a horrible investment because the money will not be worth as much when (or if) you finally get it back.

Of course, the real question is: why can't people just invest their own money?

Socialism is a sickness.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by origamiandurbanism

 

Ponzi Scheme definition:

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned."

Social Security takes money from new workers and pays to old workers. It's a ponzi scheme.

Even if social security had a surplus, which is laughable, it still is a horrible investment because the money will not be worth as much when (or if) you finally get it back.

Of course, the real question is: why can't people just invest their own money?

Socialism is a sickness.

For about the thousandth time, SS is NOT a scheme or a fraud. There is NO promise of return, it is NOT a retirement plan. What is so hard to understand about that?

Some people can invest their own money, but a lot of people cannot because they do not make enough money to do so, among other reasons.

You can say people would just take the money they put into SS and invest it but again, that is simply not true, either for personal reasons, because they do not make enough money, etc. Most would probably just use it as part of their disposable income.

But the above is besides the point since it's again, not meant for a retirement plan, it's meant as a social safety net. If not for SS millions of people would be a lot worse off, either living on the streets, in poverty, committing crimes. That is definitely not the kind of country I want to be living in.

Originally posted by origamiandurbanism

There is NO promise of return

That's the problem, there's no promise your money will be returned to you.

Some people can invest their own money, but a lot of people cannot because they do not make enough money to do so, among other reasons.

Which is why it should be voluntary. Do we arrest all people because some may be criminals? Should we give all people wheelchairs because some may not be able to walk? In Socialism land, this kind of reasoning seems logical.

You can say people would just take the money they put into SS and invest it but again, that is simply not true, either for personal reasons, because they do not make enough money, etc. Most would probably just use it as part of their disposable income.

It's their money that's their choice! Why do you feel the need to tell people what to do with their money!

Originally posted by origamiandurbanism

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by origamiandurbanism

 

Ponzi Scheme definition:

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned."

Social Security takes money from new workers and pays to old workers. It's a ponzi scheme.

Even if social security had a surplus, which is laughable, it still is a horrible investment because the money will not be worth as much when (or if) you finally get it back.

Of course, the real question is: why can't people just invest their own money?

Socialism is a sickness.

For about the thousandth time, SS is NOT a scheme or a fraud. There is NO promise of return, it is NOT a retirement plan. What is so hard to understand about that?

Some people can invest their own money, but a lot of people cannot because they do not make enough money to do so, among other reasons.

You can say people would just take the money they put into SS and invest it but again, that is simply not true, either for personal reasons, because they do not make enough money, etc. Most would probably just use it as part of their disposable income.

But the above is besides the point since it's again, not meant for a retirement plan, it's meant as a social safety net. If not for SS millions of people would be a lot worse off, either living on the streets, in poverty, committing crimes. That is definitely not the kind of country I want to be living in.

They don't make enough money to invest, but they make enough money to have it taken from them unwillingly? And somehow SS pays enough to keep people off the streets? I'm getting dizzy from your circular logic.

It doesn't matter if it's a retirement plan or not. The problem is that money is being taken from you to help me. I don't want your money. I'll keep mine, you keep yours, and we're square.

/TOA

reply to post by origamiandurbanism

Ponzi scheme, pyramid scheme, neither one applies to Social Security. It is blatantly untrue, completely false, made up, a lie started by the right wing. This is just a repeat of previous posts on here -

SS didn't start out as a Ponzi scheme, but the politicians have turned it into one. The only difference netween a Ponzi scheme and SS is that a Ponzi starts out with the intent to defraud.

But the mechanics - where withdrawals are funded by others' contributions - are the same. If the young workers stopped donating to SS, it would quickly dry up.

- It is a "social safety net" NOT a retirement plan (this is for all the "why can't the government let me keep my own money for retirement? posts).

So what does that mean? That makes confiscation of my money OK? I don't want to participate in your "safety net" - I'd rather take care of my own money. How about that?

- Ponzi scheme, pyramid scheme, etc. work by duping a group of people and funneling that money to the top (ie, one or very few people). How is that similar to SS?

You just defined it. Change the word "duping" to "stealing from" and you've defined SS.

SS is not perfect, needs to be revamped, etc. but by calling it a ponzi scheme it makes any sort of healthy discussion of the topic practically impossible.

You have to face reality, not sugar coat the truth.

Originally posted by The Old American

They don't make enough money to invest, but they make enough money to have it taken from them unwillingly? And somehow SS pays enough to keep people off the streets? I'm getting dizzy from your circular logic.

It doesn't matter if it's a retirement plan or not. The problem is that money is being taken from you to help me. I don't want your money. I'll keep mine, you keep yours, and we're square.

/TOA

Not everyone, but people that don't earn very much (which seems to be almost everyone these days) and even people that make a decent salary would probably just take that money (which is a small amount of money from each paycheck) and use it as part of their disposable income (use it on groceries, car payments, or buy stupid crap they don't need, etc.).

Some might invest it, but definitely (100%) not everyone. So what happens to people that don't or people that have struggled to save up a decent amount?

And again, SS is not a retirement fund. It is for a variety of things -

- Unemployment benefits
- Disability benefits
- SSI
- SCHIP

We live in a society together not in individual bubbles. This country would be a disaster without SS, it has helped out millions and millions of people.

Originally posted by mishigas
SS didn't start out as a Ponzi scheme, but the politicians have turned it into one. The only difference netween a Ponzi scheme and SS is that a Ponzi starts out with the intent to defraud.

But the mechanics - where withdrawals are funded by others' contributions - are the same. If the young workers stopped donating to SS, it would quickly dry up.

So what does that mean? That makes confiscation of my money OK? I don't want to participate in your "safety net" - I'd rather take care of my own money. How about that?

How has it turned into a ponzi scheme? It hasn't, millions of people benefit from SS every year.

And yes, the small portion that is taken out of your paycheck is because you live in the US, along with millions of other people.

You don't think it's important (or even morally right or necessary as a society) to look out for people that need help? Or would you rather have people living on the streets, in poverty or dying because they can't afford medication?

Originally posted by origamiandurbanism

Originally posted by mishigas
SS didn't start out as a Ponzi scheme, but the politicians have turned it into one. The only difference netween a Ponzi scheme and SS is that a Ponzi starts out with the intent to defraud.

But the mechanics - where withdrawals are funded by others' contributions - are the same. If the young workers stopped donating to SS, it would quickly dry up.

So what does that mean? That makes confiscation of my money OK? I don't want to participate in your "safety net" - I'd rather take care of my own money. How about that?

How has it turned into a ponzi scheme? It hasn't, millions of people benefit from SS every year.

And yes, the small portion that is taken out of your paycheck is because you live in the US, along with millions of other people.

You don't think it's important (or even morally right or necessary as a society) to look out for people that need help? Or would you rather have people living on the streets, in poverty or dying because they can't afford medication?

Of course it's important for people to help other people in distress. It's a moral imperative in my opinion. But it's immoral to force someone to help.

If two people walked up to you, one of them pointed a gun in your face and said "give my friend your money", that would be robbery, right? This is exactly what the government does. The only difference is that the gun appears if you don't comply.

/TOA

reply to post by origamiandurbanism

How has it turned into a ponzi scheme? It hasn't, millions of people benefit from SS every year.

That's because we haven't reached the breaking point yet. When all the baby boomers start cashing out, it will be a disaster.

Look, we agree on several points. We both want the elderly to live a dignified life. Right now I see many old people that are hungry because they have to choose between food and meds. And they make bad decisions - rationing their meds instead of taking the amount that's prescribed for them.

SS has been raided by many politicians over the years. That's why the surplus is gone. Ever hear of politicians talking about putting SS in a lock box? It's because they know it's been robbed for pork barrel programs over the years.

That's why SS now fits the definition of Ponzi. A Ponzi fails when contributors want to cash out, and there is no money to pay them. SS has the benefit of the US gov holding a gun to the head of taxpayers. But the mechanics of the top level being funded by the lower levels applies to SS.

mishigas, I agree in regards to politicians and the government using funds from SS. I think we all can agree that we have some problems with our current government, probably in different ways, though. My ultimate solution is to reform it from top to bottom. I think your solution, along with others on here, is to simply downsize the entire government.

But i'll ask this to both you and Old American - What exactly is the solution other than to reform how our government is run (how it spends, where it spends, etc.)?

If we eliminate SS and let everyone keep that money, how is that solving anything? That would be a disaster, IMO, because then we eliminate the benefits that millions of people rely on or will need to rely on in the future. Let's not forget that there are 300 million people in this country.

Also, if you look at some polls right now, an overwhelming majority of Americans do not want to cut funding or lose these services. I saw a poll today that showed about 87% were opposed to any cuts, etc. On a side note, I'm not sure how the Republicans are going to handle that in the 2012 elections.

reply to post by origamiandurbanism

mishigas, I agree in regards to politicians and the government using funds from SS. I think we all can agree that we have some problems with our current government, probably in different ways, though. My ultimate solution is to reform it from top to bottom. I think your solution, along with others on here, is to simply downsize the entire government.

But i'll ask this to both you and Old American - What exactly is the solution other than to reform how our government is run (how it spends, where it spends, etc.)?

If we eliminate SS and let everyone keep that money, how is that solving anything? That would be a disaster, IMO, because then we eliminate the benefits that millions of people rely on or will need to rely on in the future. Let's not forget that there are 300 million people in this country.

We cannot eliminate SS, that is for sure. But we must change it. Or replace it with something else. I think the solution starts with dividing the donor/recipients into 2 groups, one age 18-42 and one 43-65. The younger group will be under a different plan. And keep the pols hands out of the fund, under penalty of prison!

Have you studied the Ryan plan? I have not, other than what I hear on the news. Some agree with it, some not.

Originally posted by origamiandurbanism
mishigas, I agree in regards to politicians and the government using funds from SS. I think we all can agree that we have some problems with our current government, probably in different ways, though. My ultimate solution is to reform it from top to bottom. I think your solution, along with others on here, is to simply downsize the entire government.

But i'll ask this to both you and Old American - What exactly is the solution other than to reform how our government is run (how it spends, where it spends, etc.)?

If we eliminate SS and let everyone keep that money, how is that solving anything? That would be a disaster, IMO, because then we eliminate the benefits that millions of people rely on or will need to rely on in the future. Let's not forget that there are 300 million people in this country.

Also, if you look at some polls right now, an overwhelming majority of Americans do not want to cut funding or lose these services. I saw a poll today that showed about 87% were opposed to any cuts, etc. On a side note, I'm not sure how the Republicans are going to handle that in the 2012 elections.

edit on 26-6-2011 by origamiandurbanism because: (no reason given)

I've said before that if my opting out meant that SS kept every penny I contributed, I'd jump at that in a heartbeat. I've been working for almost 30 years, so that's not an insignificant chunk of change. If they would allow that, or, even better, pay it all back to everyone that has contributed, then abolish the system, Americans could invest in whatever they wanted, how they wanted, if they wanted.

According to this pretty nifty calculator, the rate of return on SS is less than 2.5%, depending on when you were born and how much your average annual salary is. You can get close to that in a savings account. A coworker of mine has a checking account that, if he uses his debit card once a month for any purchase (zero minimum limit), and has one direct deposit per month, gets 7% return. Even the most conservative stocks return 4%.

You want dignity for the elderly? How about not treating them like children and letting them make decisions for themselves about their own money and lives. The government needs to let us all do that.

/TOA

Wow there is a lot of people in denial on this thread.

There is no money saved anywhere for social security, there is a pile of IOU's. Our country is spending around 3.8 trillion on income of 2.2 trillion a year. The government has zero saved, a debt of 15 trillion and at the moment is only paying an interest rate around 2% on that debt. The only reason that interest rate is so low is because the fed is currently buying the majority of the bonds with money they are printing. They cannot continue to do this for very long without completely destroying the dollar, thus the interest will have to go up - by several percent. When it does our interest expense will go from 300 billion, to more like a trillion or more - around half our income. This only gets worse the more debt we have, because the risk goes up we will not be able to pay it back. If we don't pay the interest than we don't get to borrow - and that means we can only spend what we take in.

We already are spending 100% of our income on social programs, medicade, medicare, SS, and welfare. That means there is no money left over for ANYTHING ELSE. Medical costs have gone up 100% in the last ten years. The baby boomers are now all hitting retirement age as well, so the number of people we are paying out is increasing greatly with a smaller portion of the population paying in taxes.

This is really simple math, social programs must be cut in a major way - to deny it is ridiculous. There is no way the government can continue operating as it has been. Can SS be saved - I guess, but only at the cost of the other social programs.