Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
ALL THOSE YEARS the baby boomers were paying in more than social security was paying out.
Starting in the '60s or even maybe the '70s, all that money just being untouched, gaining interest, growing, compounding.
Heck, there ought to be plenty of money in social security! What happened to it? Huh? Somebody ought to tell us what happened to it. All that money the baby boomers paid in.
Shouldn't that money be there, plus interest, to give them back?
Joe Rogan is watched mostly by young people, many of which are also too young to realize that cutting social security means they're going to spend a good chunk of their adult life taking care of their parents until they die. That means paying for their housing or living facility, or having them live with you.
Reaching these young people to get this across to them is the tricky part.
Care facilities are crazy expensive, too. You think rent is bad? Try $7000 per month. The national average for a care facility is $9000.
Just let your parents starve to death on the street. Duh.
We should make 10 nukes and retire all armed forces. Then we just tell the world... We got 10 solutions to your problem. And just focus on getting more of those nukes up in space. That should make enough money to pay for social security, back rubs and happy endings. Probably toss in some NPR and educational funding.
That fucker
Oh, so SS is a ponzi scheme now? Well then, I hope you do something about that, Musk. And then I'd like my tens of thousands of dollars that were taken from my paycheck back, please. After all, if I paid into the system and I haven't used any benefits yet since I'm not at retirement age, you should be able to pay me back after you seek recompense from all the "mispayments" going on, right?
This is the billionaire class trying to do a rug pull. Don't believe their accusations of fraud and abuse, they're doing anything they can except raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for it. It's your money. You paid faithfully into the system. If they mismanaged the funds by borrowing against it to fuel military quagmires all around the world, that's a "them" problem. Hold the government accountable and do not let them cancel your retirement entitlements.
Is it possible that every single day I wake up, open Lemmy and get new outraging bullshit from this fantastic duo? Where they get those insane ideas? Don't they get tired? Go to play golf or so
Where they get those insane ideas?
They're not new. The Reich Wing has been saying this for decades, ever since Reagan started taking an ax to the program.
Elon Musk called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” claiming it’s unsustainable due to long-term obligations exceeding tax revenue.
Being a Ponzi scheme requires fraud. In a Ponzi scheme, the fraudster fraudulently claims that an investor is making a larger return than he is, then -- for a while -- pays him back from future investments from other investors. It is intrinsically unsustainable.
Social Security isn't fraudulent. It states explicitly that people contributing to Social Security are providing the funds to people who are withdrawing from it. It may not be sustainable to maintain a fixed level of benefits at a fixed level of taxation if the fertility rate is declining, but the lack of sustainability isn't what makes a Ponzi scheme a Ponzi scheme. It's the presence of fraud, which does not exist for Social Security.
I remember that the Social Security Administration website used to have a page up explicitly describing why it wasn't a Ponzi scheme.
"Full self-driving"
You know what, if they destroy Social Security just because Musk said so, I have no doubt there will be blood. Too many people from too many demographics in too many places rely on it just to SURVIVE, let alone abuse it in any meaningful way.
This would honestly be one of, if not the fastest ways to spark a civil war, outside of rolling troops into major cities and opening fire. Why? Because you'd suddenly have millions of people unable to feed themselves, in a country where there are significantly more guns than people, and they'd all have ample cause to march on DC.
THAT SAID, I doubt Musk and Trump have thought of that, because they're 2 drug-addled lunatics who do not and never have cared about long-term ramifications. I'm sure other Republicans are shitting themselves in fear right now, as the Dipshit Duo get ready to kill the Political Golden Goose, but none of them can speak up for fear of losing power.
What a fucking mess.
Yeah, that would be the last nail in the coffin of me ever being able to retire so I'd have nothing left to live for at that point and I would be able to dip into enough savings to make myself a problem.
Remember, when they say Musk is a """Billionaire Genius""", THIS is who they're talking about. A raging Ketamine addict with a massive ego problem.
It's one of the most popular social programs in American history. It's also OUR FUCKING MONEY ELON.
Popular… except i have grown up being told that ss was something i paid into but would not be available for me.
Elon is a anamorphic Ponzi scheme.
Does he feel like way about all pension programs or just the ones he is trying to plunder?
Yes
The favorite dumb argument from the guys who constantly defraud governments via tax dodging and subsidies.
Despicable thief and con man.
Social security is never going to "run out" it's continuously funded, that's how it works. America lacks curiosity and an attention span beyond a couple seconds. Conservatives loudly accuse (while projecting), demand detailed explanation and then immediately become disinterested in the explanation they demanded - mostly because they can't comprehend the basic concepts and their eyes glaze over. For the most part they are unserious, homicidal and suicidal and just looking for an excuse to have an outburst.
Don't let them leech your energy trying to explain or debate. They don't know or care what you are talking about.
It can run out if the amount if money being distributed exceeds the amount of money being collected. Such as when there are a large number of retirees (the "baby boomer" generation is much larger then the one preceeding it) or fewer workers (eg. if immigration slows or birthrates drop).
The point is that it won't. Your internet could turn off next month if you don't pay your fucking bill... But you pay your FUCKING bill. There's no validity in your position. It's an OLD right wing propaganda talking point - you're either ignorant of that or complicit in it. Either way, do better.
It's basic economics, if our population declines (either because people have less babies or immigration declines; both of which are currently happening) there will be less money going in to social security. While that's happening, the number of retirees is greatly increasing.
In terms of your internet service analogy, this is like losing your job at the same time your internet rates get raised. You can't pay your bills if you don't have any money.
It's basic BAD FAITH economics. Your point about "less money going in" is a self fulfilling prophecy by the GOP - They dismantle finding sources for the social safety net programs actively and then loudly complain that those programs are doomed.
In the "America great again" years that the lead poisoned boomers are longing for, we had income tax for the highest earners around 90%. So Reagan, bushes and trump give out huge tax cuts to the wealthy, gut the IRS so that money isn't coming in and then ignorant and/or deceptive little foot soldiers like yourself rush in to carry water for the lie and try to create fact through repetition. You are wrong, period, end of story. The only Epsom is of you ate being used and are unaware or if you are willingly perpetuating this bullshit in bad faith.
Your bad position is SO played out in fact, that here is a clip that is a decade old explaining how you are wrong and trying to prop up an old, tired lie. https://youtu.be/k3dK-z9F4C0
Shame on you, bud. You seem smart enough to know better.
You're making a strawman argument. I never said social security couldn't (or shouldn't) be saved. Nor did I argue that the Republicans aren't at fault for its problems. Obviously raising taxes to increase the amount of money going in to social security would fix the budget issues.
Your posts give a real "old man yelling at clouds" vibe
Your posts give a real "Publicly arguing technicalities for the sake of it in furtherance of the downfall of modern society on behalf of oligarchs with an end game to kill off poor people and refine their bodies into biodiesel" vibe.
You don't seem to understand that your lack of that stated context of good or bad alongside your defense is very telling. Quit doing work for the bad guys, or if you continue, have the balls to openly count yourself among their ranks.
"My defense?" "The bad guys?" You're being very adversarial, and I'm not sure why you keep trying to make me your enemy. Posting on Lemmy isn't good for anything except venting, and if you want to be a keyboard warrior you should find a community where conservatives gather. You still won't be doing anything productive, but at least Lemmy will be a little more peaceful.
Didnt Reagan under a conservative government allow the money to be spent, in order to pay for the debt left over after the great society act?
It therefore would now be a ponzi scheme, where past investors pay new investors, until the outflows outpace inflows and it fails.
No, what happened during the Reagan administration is that the government recognized that decades in the future, the predicted change in the age pyramid would mean more retirees and fewer workers to support them. So rather than slightly increasing SS taxes in the future to cover this, they started increasing SS taxes immediately and investing that overpayment in Treasury bonds (this is the origin of the Social Security "trust fund" which is routinely misrepresented as the entirely of the SS system). This SS trust fund money is primarily what allowed Reagan to run enormous deficits ("fiscal conservative" lol) without causing interest rates to spiral out of control.
There is absolutely nothing about Social Security which is in any way like a Ponzi scheme. It is simply a pension plan applied to the whole country instead of just an individual company.
Ah interesting, thanks for the correction. Though since treasuries are paid by the government is it not then still a ponzi scheme, in the fact the bonds must be redeemed to pay for shortfalls, in which case the government must tax the existing population to pay for the redeemed bond to fund the old?
If we are looking at our existing scenario with the baby boomers I'd assume we must be close to being forced to liquidate, and taxes will rise on the young for the bond repayment?
If they allowed people to opt out would it not be the case that as people opt out you'd need to raise taxes on the young as more people opted out, since none of the money actually still exists, cascading into an insolvent system just like how a standard ponzi scheme unwinds?
Though since treasuries are paid by the government is it not then still a ponzi scheme,
No, social security is investing in treasuries just like any other retirement fund might
in the fact the bonds must be redeemed to pay for shortfalls, in which case the government must tax the existing population
Well yeah, kind of. The government issues bonds to finance its debt. Some amount of that is a good thing, to fund large projects. However a poorly run government running a constantly increasing deficit and funding a constantly increasing debt with constantly increasing bonds is mortgaging its future to pay for its present. Think of the analogy of living off your credit cards. At some point you’ll hit a limit, everything comes due and you’re going to have a very bad time.
This is poor governance, regardless of who is buying the bonds. It has nothing to do with social security.
This is also why the idea of a smaller government is so compelling: we need to do something about ever increasing debt. However the political party that talks most about that is the one most responsible for that debt. You don’t reduce debt by more and more tax cuts for the wealthy nor ever increasing military.
There had been the expectation by some that our debt doesn’t matter as long as the dollar acts as the world’s reserve currency, but what happens when this stops? What happens when chaos spite and narcissism disrupts global trade and alliances, driving other countries away from trade with US, away from the dollar as an exchange currency? What happens when those countries no longer buy the enormous amounts of US Bonds they have been and no longer find our debt? And Social Security is at an inflection where it needs to pay out more than it’s bringing in do starts selling the bonds it’s invested in? We might be in for a very bad time, decades of government mismanagement under taxing the wealthy and overspending coming due at once, triggered by the idiot we voted for
Just forget about the "trust fund" because as I mentioned, it's not central to the way the SS system works. Social Security is simply a system whereby a large base of workers pays taxes to fund the (modest) retirement of a much smaller number of retirees. These are rough numbers, but: the average man starts work at age 21 and retires at age 65 (meaning he pays into the system for 44 years); the average male retiree then dies at age 76 (meaning he collects SS benefits for 11 years). So on average, four workers pay SS taxes to support one retiree. The average SS benefit is $1,583 per month, which means the average worker needs to pay just $396 per month in SS taxes for the system to remain solvent indefinitely. The median annual salary in the US is $59,384 (or $4949 per month) which means the SS tax rate only needs to be 8% (it's currently 6.2% because the trust fund is being dipped into). Any shortfall could be easily made good by 1) raising the tax rate, and/or 2) raising the cap on taxable income.
This is why the "Ponzi scheme SS" meme is bullshit. A Ponzi scheme provides fake returns to investors by returning part of the money invested by new suckers; as soon as you run out of new suckers, the scheme collapses. Social Security does not in any way rely on perpetually finding new suckers, it only relies on the demographic reality of human beings having a much longer working life than retired life.
Alternative headline: expert on ponzi schemes bemoans what he sees as competition