Friday, January 28, 2011

Social Security will be drained by 2037.

Click Here

According to this article as this year will be the first year baby boomers start collecting social security. And this is a ponzi/madoff scheme that they use the money and put an IOU in there and then have another generation put the money back in but there aren't enough young people to pay Social Security for the baby boomers that will be retiring.

I will be 66 in 2037.


SouthernBelle Rivky said...

Well SS wasn't originally suppose to support people for so long and at such a high level. Average life expectancy in the 1930's was lower than today. A person that retires at 65 probably will have at least 15 years, possibly 20-30 years of support. Plus there are a lot more old people now than in the past (even before the baby boomer generation).

People also lived a lot more simply. Nowadays, many of the older folks did have company pensions which most people working today don't have outside of government jobs, so if anything they already have some sponsored support, which was part of their work compensation.

I thought the origin of SS link was interesting, especially with English poor laws

Analytical Adam said...

This obviously is a very biased source since it is written by the people who work for Social Security. You think that is an unbiased source. So you believe this government source.

The problem is FDR from what I understand those who were already older didn't get Social Security as they paid nothing in.

It was only those who paid in that got Social Security when they got older.

The problem though is this. Those who paid in the money was not put in a lock box. The money was put in was used by FDR and the men in the government. And an IOU was put in there for another generation.
The whole purpose of this was to get additional money for his own selfish purposes FDR and he just used the elderly to hide his wanting more money for him and his cronies.

That is called a ponzi scheme if you take someone's money and put an IOU and expect another generation to pay what was already paid because you want to use the money.

So when they retire to get the benefits another generation has to put in.

There is another problem. And that is people that have children deserve to be taken care of when they are older. Those who don't it is wrong for them to want another persons child to pay for them.

It is sad that you don't even realize you are supporting socialism. According to this site anything bad that has happened is because the government didn't intervene which is utter nonsense. There was a food shortage when the Pilgrims came to this country because they originally supported everything being by the commune which did not work.

Analytical Adam said...

Furthermore, if few people lived long the average life expectancy was 59 a better solution is some kind of annuity that if you live longer then average you get paid more and the amount you put in is based on the statistics. It isn't an excuse for FDR to impose a tax and him using the money and putting an IOU in there. To force everyone to pay is wrong also. Some have kids to take care of them or had a lot of savings so why should they be forced to pay for someone else who never got married and did not save.

Analytical Adam said...

Actually on average if you have lived to age 65 your life expectancy is 17 for men and 20 for woman on average according to the almanac on page 217.

SouthernBelle Rivky said...

GRRR!!! There you go again. Who said I was supporting anything?? Or think the government is taking care of anything. Go to the IRS website and get 3 different answers.

I specifically pointed out I thought some of the early history was interesting like the English system which a lot of American laws are based on. Like the classification of poor into those that were sick or old and therefore not able to work and those that were just not working. Whether it was because lazy or couldn't find work, I'm not sure how that was handled.

I don't see how point out a chunk of history is buying into anything.

Analytical Adam said...

I don't quote David Duke because I don't think his view of things are accurate. I don't quote National Public Radio because they have very limited credibility and they can have zero people listening to their saw and would still get money from the government.

People I quote I feel are worthwhile sources in general and I usually make caveats as I understand wikipedia isn't perfect but I think for the most part it is reasonable.

The fact that you quote the government history of Social Security you believe their writing and their biased of Social Security is credible. I don't as they are very biased. You could have quoted a private source on the history but you did not. So clearly if you are gong to post this you feel it is credible and their gong back to the 1600's in England.

Second of all what the heck does this have to do with English law in the 1600's. You mean our presidents were stupid till FDR and second of all this country declared independence from England the last time I checked.

All countries have flirted with socialism and every time it has failed and led to wars and food shortage and needless death.