Trying to Kill Social Security

[Hermenutic]

Well I have no idea then what your proposal is. It seems that in your proposal there is a one against all kind of philosophy at work. I get an image in my mind of such a society where we are all on the way together but one by one people fall by the wayside and according to the philosophy I feel you are promoting nobody stops to help them.

Furthermore the suggestion that helping someone in trouble seems to be something this philosophy cannot tolerate.

It seem to me this way of thinking either forgets that human beings are important or it disregards that knowledge on the basis that they obviously did not act responsible during their productive years.

I disagree. I think if people need help others should help them and furthermore it is the function of government to do that in following its directive from the people to promote the general welfare.

Arguing that human need is insignificant and subordinate to the needs of the state is an unacceptable proposition for me because it inverts the nature of democratic society.

I am not advocating that SS be ended, only that the "entitlements" are not entitlements but a social benefit. The government should not be running a deficit indefinitely simply to give you money.

Overall, I dislike the idea of a nanny state. If you (hypothetical, not you in particular as I know nothing about you) squandered your productive years and failed to provide yourself with a comfortable life style for your retirement, that's your problem not societies. It is quite possible that you contributed greatly to society but also took greatly from society. Having successfully survived long enough to reach 65 does not entitle you to a free pass.

[Elithium]

1: Strawman. I never stated or implied that we should leave the elderly to die or cut all benefits. I did state that the government should not be running deficits to fund social programs for the elderly. Please address what I actually state.

2: I do not have a philosophy that I am proposing. My approach to things is to look at what would have the best impact for society. As such, I evaluate issues on a case by case basis.

3: You have not addressed the arguments I provided. I am responsible. Why should I have to pay for those who are not responsible? A elderly individual who did not make arrangements for their own future acted irresponsibly.

4: I agree that the function of the government is to promote the general welfare of its populous. Running up unsustainable debts to fund inordinately generous social programs for the elderly is not promoting the general welfare of the American people. It is favoring the minority of the populous who happens to be far more active in voting over the majority of Americans, including the Americans who are unable to vote such as our children. Your living a comfortable life style should not come at the cost of the next generation.

5: Strawman. I never stated that the state is more important than its populous. The suffering of the roughly 80% of Americans who are not collecting social security and the economic woes that America will face as it weans itself off the current unsustainable programs is what I am concerned with.

6: There's no reason you can't survive off of $500 a month. Yes, your quality of life would suck but that's your own fault if you did not plan for your future. Social programs should be a helping hand, not a crutch.

Well I have no idea then what your proposal is. It seems that in your proposal there is a one against all kind of philosophy at work. I get an image in my mind of such a society where we are all on the way together but one by one people fall by the wayside and according to the philosophy I feel you are promoting nobody stops to help them.

Furthermore the suggestion that helping someone in trouble seems to be something this philosophy cannot tolerate.

It seem to me this way of thinking either forgets that human beings are important or it disregards that knowledge on the basis that they obviously did not act responsible during their productive years.

I disagree. I think if people need help others should help them and furthermore it is the function of government to do that in following its directive from the people to promote the general welfare.

Arguing that human need is insignificant and subordinate to the needs of the state is an unacceptable proposition for me because it inverts the nature of democratic society.

[ironeagle]

First SS is just another government money laundering scam. It started as a good idea for the benefit of the people and turned into a money laundering racket. The government steals from this fund to pay for things it has no right to pay for with this money. In addition to that the SSN has been illegally used as an identifier to mark the people via a number system ( no differnet than numbering the jews) for the purposes of government tracking of people. The numbers only pirpose used to be for you and the SS Admin, for purposes of SS. Now it's a tracking number which is used to regulate and track the people. As if that wasn't enough every Joe Schmoe is now allowed to pry into your private life and recods and request if not require your SSN. Privatizing SS into banks is obvioulsy for one purpose only, to steal more of our money. Giving banks our SS is the equivelence of gambling, banks do nothing if it does not make them profit, the profit ought go to the SS holder, so if the bank manages to make profit by gambling the ss then that might benefit the person, but will likley benefit the banks more. But, what happens when the banks lose the gamble? What happens when they have to bailed out again after loosing not only our 401ks but then losing our SS too? This would be an unwise idea. Personally I don't care which of the duopoly parties suggests it is bad for America. I think both parties stand to gain for this type of thing because republics like money, and dems like stealing people's money against their will, and redistributing it. I'm sure their stance will be "it's for the better of all people if we pool all or SS to gamble it." Exactly why is it again that the government is suggesting people using their earned SS is some kind of handout? Funny I was under the impression people paid thier entire lives for those benefits. It's just like every other program we pay for it then they suggets we are stealing from them when we demand the benfits we paid for. The government is no better than a gang of thieves.

[Dodds]

1: Strawman. I never stated or implied that we should leave the elderly to die or cut all benefits. I did state that the government should not be running deficits to fund social programs for the elderly. Please address what I actually state.

I would just like to ask about this point, why not?

[Jack]

Elaborate please. Links are not elaboration.

The links don't require elaboration. They clearly correct the misconceptions about Social Security you posted.

[Elithium]

I am not going to read through a bunch of links looking for what you are trying to state. Please elaborate how I am wrong.

The links don't require elaboration. They clearly correct the misconceptions about Social Security you posted.

[Elithium]

I would just like to ask about this point, why not?

Because it's not sustainable. Because the next generations will be paying for the benefits of the current generation.

America is running a double digit annual deficit. 2/3's of our spending goes to the elderly. It is simply not sustainable. Do I really have to explain why running unsustainable debts is a bad thing? Do I need to explain the impact of inflation and national default?

[Dodds]

Because it's not sustainable. Because the next generations will be paying for the benefits of the current generation.

Not always. In fact public debt can be paid down in around 10 years.

America is running a double digit annual deficit. 2/3's of our spending goes to the elderly. It is simply not sustainable. Do I really have to explain why running unsustainable debts is a bad thing? Do I need to explain the impact of inflation and national default?

And just what impact does the cutting or reforming of these programs have?(Hint look at Spain)

Inflation happens, it always has and will. Most inflation comes from the private sector. Its impact is good on national debt and deficits.

EDIT: Oh can you also back up that 2/3rds of US spending goes on the elderly.

[Elithium]

I have no problem with debt, I have a problem with unsustainable debt. Do you believe running 7% deficit a year is sustainable when GDP growth is 2%?

It can be paid off through inflation or growth. Either a decade of low/no growth and wealth erosion or America needs to grow faster than China over the next decade. The latter doesn't seem likely.

Spain's problems were not because of cuts in social programs. Spain's woes are due entirely to a massive housing bubble.

Again, I am not against social programs. I am against prolific spending when there is no need. If America had a balanced budget and then needed to expand spending 3%-4% of GDP during the recession, then there wouldn't have been a problem. However, when the US government was already running a 3-4% of GDP deficit, adding an additional 3-5% of GDP during the recession suddenly becomes a serious issue.

Currently, 20% of government spending is on social security. I don't feel like trolling through everything so going to wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U...._-_FY_2011.png
Currently, Medicare (to be fair, this is 1/6 disabled under 65) expenditures make up 18% of government spending.
So currently, it is a little over 1/3 of government spending. However:
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html
By 2035, it will be 61% of government spending and over 1/6 of GDP. These figures are assuming a return to average growth rates as well. If America keeps its current anemic growth rate, the figures will be far worse.

Again, it's simply not sustainable. We need to the fix problem before it becomes something we can't fix (assuming it's not already).

Not always. In fact public debt can be paid down in around 10 years.



And just what impact does the cutting or reforming of these programs have?(Hint look at Spain)

Inflation happens, it always has and will. Most inflation comes from the private sector. Its impact is good on national debt and deficits.

EDIT: Oh can you also back up that 2/3rds of US spending goes on the elderly.

[Jack]

I am not going to read through a bunch of links looking for what you are trying to state. Please elaborate how I am wrong.

Because it's not sustainable. Because the next generations will be paying for the benefits of the current generation.

It is a logical impossibility for Social Security to go bankrupt. We can voluntarily choose to suspend or eliminate the program, but it could never fail because it “ran out of money.” This belief is the result of a common error: conceptualizing Social Security from the micro (individual) rather than the macro (economy-wide) perspective. It’s not a pension fund into which you put your money when you are young and from which you draw when you are old. It’s an immediate transfer from workers today to retirees today. That’s what it has always been and that’s what it has to be–there is no other possible way for it to work.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnthar...t-go-bankrupt/ (emphasis added)

And primarily...

The most important take-away points from the 2012 Trustees Report will be that Social Security has a large and growing surplus; that without any Congressional action, Social Security will continue to pay benefits to America’s eligible working families for decades; and that with modest legislated increases in revenue, it will continue to pay those benefits for the next century and beyond.

Because the economic recovery and wage growth have been slower than expected and the cost of living was higher, this year’s report is likely to project that the number of years that Social Security can continue to pay benefits in full with no Congressional action will be a year or two shorter. But it is still decades away -- and the precise year has fluctuated in virtually every Trustees Report, sometimes sooner, sometimes later. The fluctuation is unsurprising given the uncertainties related to projecting inflation, wage growth, productivity, immigration rates, fertility rates, and other factors so far into the future.

With the issuance of the 2012 report, journalists will have an opportunity to correct the common misunderstanding that Social Security is now paying out more in benefits than it is collecting in income. Social Security is prohibited by law from doing that, and if there were less income than outgo this year, the Trustees would be announcing an immediate cut in benefits. They are not.

Journalists can clarify that Social Security has three revenue sources: Payroll contributions from employers and employees, interest earned on Social Security’s U.S. Treasury bond holdings (which have the same legal standing and status of all other Treasury bonds issued by the government), and income taxes on the Social Security benefits paid by those with higher incomes. The report will likely project that Social Security’s benefits and administrative costs in 2012 will exceed the amount of payroll tax contributions collected -- but that is not surprising in light of the stagnation of average wages and continued high unemployment. Indeed, it has happened 18 times since 1958, according to the Social Security Administration.

Payroll contributions along with interest and taxes will be more than enough to cover the cost of the program this year. Last year’s report projected that at the end of 2011, Social Security would have an accumulated surplus of around $2.7 trillion, which it now has. This year’s report will show that it will be even higher at the end of 2012.

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index....ckgroundid=628

[Hermenutic]

1. The gathered from the tone of your entire reply the implication of your intent runs along the lines of 'tough crap for them they screwed up and there's consequences.' I guess in some pov no inability is a justification for failing to be self sufficient. BTW in this society no one is self sufficient who relies on credit.

2. It is difficult for me to conceive of an adult who does not have a built in way of looking at and deciphering the world. That would be a philosophy. You state that you have none. As far as i can tell it means you have not interacted and come to grips with things or you practice Zen?

3. I don't think you should have to do anything to help anyone at all. It's clear from what you have told me that what ever it is that motivates you (it is not a philosophy or an ideology just what you think is right at the present moment) makes helping people a difficult choice for you. It sounds like a society of heartless and non-empathetic people you envision as ideal.

4. We already have run up unsustainable debts for things other than social programs. So it should be clear debt has never been a problem that made us not do something we wanted to as a nation. It becomes a problem when we talk about helping those on main street. A mere changing of priorities from sacking the world to taking care of the people at home would suffice.

5. It is admirable to care for 80 % of the populous. The rest are also human too. I agree that people should take care of themselves. I did to some extent bought a house and moved across the country and paid for it in cash. small house, not much but it's good for me and my cats. However the people i worked with younger than me had their retirement stolen from them. It was not their fault. They had worked played by the rules and the crooks on wall street stole their future.

Now they are unprepared, I fail to see how their lack of preparation is their fault. I was lucky being old enough to take my money out when the crooks began making it vanish. But my fellow employees had to go back to work and some are still working when they had been planning to retire. Now that these people need help is it their fault? Would your ideas of how things should be let them lay on the side of the road in economic need or help them?

6. This really makes all you other statement take on a sense of unreality. Knowing a man can hold such an idea and believe it to be correct says a lot about how he thinks.


Having lived a few years I know sometimes unplanned for things come to pass. The wife leaves and you get stuck with the bilsl and file bankruptcy, or the kid gets leukemia and you have no insurance or maybe he becomes a teenager and wrecks the car driving drunk and as a result you are liable with no ability to pay because of the size of the settlement.

How does the way you see things at the moment react to an outside of the plan event? Suppose according to your management plan for society something unplanned for happens. Have you ever had something happen that wasn't planned for. If not you will eventually. Just how do you plan for that which hasn't happened and is it possible to plan to the degree that what ever happens you've got it covered and it's still smooth sailing?

1: Strawman. I never stated or implied that we should leave the elderly to die or cut all benefits. I did state that the government should not be running deficits to fund social programs for the elderly. Please address what I actually state.

2: I do not have a philosophy that I am proposing. My approach to things is to look at what would have the best impact for society. As such, I evaluate issues on a case by case basis.

3: You have not addressed the arguments I provided. I am responsible. Why should I have to pay for those who are not responsible? A elderly individual who did not make arrangements for their own future acted irresponsibly.

4: I agree that the function of the government is to promote the general welfare of its populous. Running up unsustainable debts to fund inordinately generous social programs for the elderly is not promoting the general welfare of the American people. It is favoring the minority of the populous who happens to be far more active in voting over the majority of Americans, including the Americans who are unable to vote such as our children. Your living a comfortable life style should not come at the cost of the next generation.

5: Strawman. I never stated that the state is more important than its populous. The suffering of the roughly 80% of Americans who are not collecting social security and the economic woes that America will face as it weans itself off the current unsustainable programs is what I am concerned with.

6: There's no reason you can't survive off of $500 a month. Yes, your quality of life would suck but that's your own fault if you did not plan for your future. Social programs should be a helping hand, not a crutch.

[Dodds]

I have no problem with debt, I have a problem with unsustainable debt. Do you believe running 7% deficit a year is sustainable when GDP growth is 2%?

After having actually looked at the US Federal budget predictions, what you have asked is not based in reality. The deficit is falling even with substandard growth. Is that sustainable? No. Is it what is happening? No. And that is it falling without cuts in government expenditure.

It can be paid off through inflation or growth. Either a decade of low/no growth and wealth erosion or America needs to grow faster than China over the next decade. The latter doesn't seem likely.

Do you know what inflation is? You need inflation to get any kind of growth. Without an expansion of the money supply there is no way we can have growth. At the moment the USA as well as Europe are in a liquidity trap. The expansion of M1 money supply has not caused inflation but countered deflation. Which is a hell of a lot worse.

Spain's problems were not because of cuts in social programs. Spain's woes are due entirely to a massive housing bubble.

At last someone who knows the truth. However the austerity measures have worsened the situation and caused the unemployment and recessions that followed the housing bubble.

Again, I am not against social programs. I am against prolific spending when there is no need. If America had a balanced budget and then needed to expand spending 3%-4% of GDP during the recession, then there wouldn't have been a problem.

I can agree here.

However, when the US government was already running a 3-4% of GDP deficit, adding an additional 3-5% of GDP during the recession suddenly becomes a serious issue.

It is a short term measure though. I believe the deficit is to be eroded completely in 6 years. I could be wrong with the timing.

Currently, 20% of government spending is on social security. I don't feel like trolling through everything so going to wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U...._-_FY_2011.png
Currently, Medicare (to be fair, this is 1/6 disabled under 65) expenditures make up 18% of government spending.
So currently, it is a little over 1/3 of government spending. However:
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html
By 2035, it will be 61% of government spending and over 1/6 of GDP. These figures are assuming a return to average growth rates as well. If America keeps its current anemic growth rate, the figures will be far worse.

Again, it's simply not sustainable. We need to the fix problem before it becomes something we can't fix (assuming it's not already).

This is without any taxation increases. With a balanced budget and even raising the tax to sub European levels SS and Medicare should be feasible forever. Or even a raise in the retirement age would help.