Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414
How is "Ponzi scheme" a conservative framing? It's named after Charles Ponzi, the guy who took investors' money and used it to pay off previous investors. Will not social security use the money of current investors to pay off previous investors? Yes. Did SS know that the amount being taken from investors was not adequate based on their expected retirement draw to properly finance the plan - and that they would have to use other people's money to make good on their promise? Yes. Does the perpetrator of the plan benefit from its creation. Yes. If we can use cognitive framing of corporate personhood on one argument it's perfectly fair to have government personhood to explain the motivation (acquiring power) in creating entitlement programs.
I see you are uncomfortable that the venerated entitlement program parallels a popular fraud, but it is the very definition, not a cognitive framing.
|
For one, social security is not an investment. It is meant to, as the name might suggest, provide social security. It forces working Americans to sock away some of their earnings to provide for themselves when they retire. The reason it was created is because, for various reasons, a significant percentage of people do not manage to save enough during their working lives to provide for themselves after they retire.
Second, a Ponzi scheme requires a ever-increasing investor pool, since previous investors are paid out more than what they put in to get the 'incredible' returns on investment. Social security does not require an increasing pool of workers, but, in it's current form, can only support a limited contraction of the labor pool.
So, if the SSA projections are accurate, in about 25 years, if nothing is done to change the SS system, the trust fund will start to run out of money. Ok, fine, something should be done about that. But it isn't the emergency or proof of the failure of social security that conservatives like to pretend it is.
If conservatives would make honest arguments against things like this, I'd have a lot more respect for them and conservatism as a movement. It's fine to say "I don't think the government should force people to save for their retirement." Fine. Talk about that. Not this ponzi scheme BS or faux concern over the long term solvency of SS.
---------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414
"These are not the droids you are looking for." - The Social Security Administration
Hasn't the average Federal salary risen to about 163% of the average private sector salary? You must have to pay big to find people smart enough to manage a program that will only pay me 74% of what they said they would.
|
Cite?
No?
You are getting your facts from liars.
Here's an article that debunks this lie pretty well:
Correcting Myths About Federal Pay