"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.

It's consistently employed by Conservatives for framing. It's an aspersion rather analysis. It's use as 'analysis' is nonexistent. Social Security is of such social utility that we need to fix it rather than let it die, but we can't increase the amount of money we're putting into it, afterall, it's a PONZI scheme. It allows you to rationalize the feelings that lead into statements like:
It's utility is in the feelings, in the manipulation of saliency in view of subsequent judgment. Framing. It derails everything into the land of feelings.

It derails everything into the land of feelings. That's the utility. How is a program's failure to cope with demographic trends, and then letting everyone know 'we're having trouble coping with demographic trends, here are long projections' something that is best viewed through the lense of a scam? It's a totally useless perspective. SS needs to adapt to demographic trends. How is it at all reasonable to understand that in terms of a scam? SS and the schemes you cite have different functions and trajectories.

I'm having trouble thinking through why you think comparing it to a PONZI scheme is relevant to anything but I more or less concluded it's an emotional thing. Why do you think it's bears mentioning?

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 ----------

Cite?

No?

You are getting your facts from liars.

Here's an article that debunks this lie pretty well:

Correcting Myths About Federal Pay

SS Maybe not be a true Ponzi Scheme but it certainly has elements that are similar so I can understand conservatives making that comparison. The part I don't get it is it's trouble and needs to be fixed. The only thing I hear coming from the right is "get rid of it" and "privatize it." SS has helped a lot of people over the years. A lot of low income folks and disabled folks would have nothing without it. I certainly favor fixing it over getting rid of it.

personally i think alot of the conservative whining about social security is about protecting military spending by directing attention away from it. but its that sector which eats the largest proportion of any other....to make of social security etc something larger, conservatives have to add things together. and so far as i am concerned, no conservative who talks about deficits as a problem and doesn't talk about slashing military spending is worth taking seriously.

I'll say it again for at least the fifth time on here: Military spending should be cut dramatically. We should only enter conflict if we declare war on a nation. Having said that, all international aid should be cut until we are debt free as a nation. Even then, the federal government should not be giving money to foreign lands as aid, that's what charity is for and Americans are the most charitable people in the world.

...and no, Radd McCool, it should not be fixed. It should be phased out. Put on your big boy pants, save your 3.5% yourself in a Roth IRA and retire a millionaire....and for the record, until this thread, I have never called SS a Ponzi Scheme. I believe its existence to be outside of the responsibilities of the Federal government. I believe it is a program which denies Americans the opportunity to grow wealth, so that the government can maintain control over an element of their lives. I believe it is a wedge issue which politicians balloon to maintain or exchange control of the government.

and that, cimmaron, is entirely fantastical insofar as "foreign aid" is concerned.
you cannot possibly understand the first thing about what they call "globalizing capitalism" and how it operates and maintain that position as anything more than a pipe dream.

and understanding that as "charity" simply compounds the error.
but there's always time for a moment of self-congratulations. it's amazing how wonderful every last american is. no wonder everyone everywhere loves us so much. only bad people think bad things about the united states.

for example, i am quite sure that pinochet in chile was just misunderstood.

but the military--absolutely it can be cut and cut very substantially.

You guarantee that in 40 years he'd be a millionaire? Wow, I was putting money away in an IRA for 10 years, and had less, at the end of that, than I had put into the damned thing. So if I stuck it out for another 30 years of that it would magically be millions? Nice.

If 3.5% is 10 bucks, then no - you will not be a millionaire.

Find me any 40 year period in the market, and you take your contributions and the annual return. I think you will find your coming out just fine. Here's a quick one:

3.5% of $50K salary is $1750. Divided in months is $145.83/month Put into the market at a 10% rate of return will give you $929K in 40 years. Since any good advisor says you need to keep back 15% for retirement, you can see how it goes...

For the love of God, don't come back with "Well, that's a $50K salary!" You can go find an investment calculator, put in your salary, and calculate whatever you want. The point is, it isn't that hard to earn wealth through investments - unless you are "investing" in the SS program.

I'll take your dropping the 'framing issue' as conceding that yes, it's totally up-front framing.
You're telling that to the guy who's tightening up his budget every month trying to hit 10%. (And Ad hom is really bad form. It also sucks.)
Why'd you point this out?
So it's ideologically out of synch. Got it.
Turns out I can't do something as simple as embedding graphs until I have 15 posts. Or even linking to the graphs. But I was going to post a bunch about how people are going into more and more debt, spending down their savings, seeing trouble with real wages, etc. Government has to play to not only the behavior of the population, but their economic environment. Something like Social Security does that in a way which is beneficial to the whole of society. Utility/Practically > Ideology
I am 90% certain that you are saying this for the same reason you called it a PONZI scheme. It's like a prop or something. I mean, can you explain that? The first part is basically meaningless, the second party seems to play a broader context which is simply you conflating different contexts and not seeing a problem

Foreign aid lubricates soft power. The notion that it's charity is propaganda. Foreign Aid as goodCharity or badCharity both are propaganda. Take a look at the Gulf of Guinea. We're going to be getting tons of oil and natural gas from them and you know what got us in the ground floor? Foreign Aid, amongst other things. And now we're going to enjoy being first at the table for some totally bitching resource flows. This is part and parcel to what it takes to keep up first world standards of living and foreign aid is a tiny, tiny part of our budget and we get lots of cool stuff for it.

No, I'm not dropping the framing, because I didn't create the framing - Dan Johnson did.

Good for you, trying to get to 10%. Just imagine if the government gave you your 3.5% back from their shit-ass program, how easy it would be for you to get there.

I point out that I never called it a Ponzi scheme since you "frame" it as generally a "conservative tactic". Or, did you use framing? It's hard to say. I mean, am I defending the Ponzi scheme analogy or whether it's only conservatives who say it. I'm just so confused - all this framing and such.

You can embed 1,000,000 graphs and it won't make a difference. People spend their money on their unlimited texting, their 250 channel TV contract, their over-priced brand new "identity" car, etc. long before they worry about eating dogfood in their 80's. I'm not playing the game of "Source???", so you can ignore me if you think I'm being deceitful.

Utility is not greater than Ideology. You lack character if you sacrifice your core values. Sorry.

I didn't call it a Ponzi scheme, Dan Johnson did. I'm not going to argue with you over the strings attached to government entitlement programs. You are a fool if you deny them.

I'm not going to argue with you over foreign aid.

I'm breaking my rule of getting dragged too deep into these political threads. I apologize for leaving when you are on a roll, but I've determined it is a waste of time. Do what you want, vote for who you think is best, good luck to you.

I know this is a weird thing to say but I am literally getting the impression that you're a bit depressed and worn down.

Not at all. As those who have been here a while can attest, I have been less and less involved in the politics section of the board. Primarily, because it is truly a waste of time. There's no chance "you" will pull the lever "my" way, or vice versa. I suppose one could argue that our words might end up influencing others, thus making it worthwhile - but there's no guarantee there either. I'm not perfect and have clearly fallen back into the trap in this thread.

If you hang out here and find it fruitful to debate with Ace, knock yourself out. Roach and Baraka have got your back. I like all three of them and enjoy watching the fireworks, as I'll enjoy your contributions.

But as for my industry, my energies are better spent "fixing my own house", that's all.

Social Security should be privatized. I've been contributing to my 401K for the last 15 years or so. My 401K alone is on track to match at age 62 what my Social Security payment will be at age 62 where I've been paying into Social Security for 36 years. That's following a pretty conservative investment strategy of investing in diversified stock market funds and bonds to reduce the risk of a single stock crashing.

Besides which, I get to pass on any 401K balance as an inheritance, which I don't get to do with Social Security.

It's not the government's job to save me from myself. It's not your responsibility to provide me food and shelter and it's not my responsibility to provide you with food or shelter.

---------- Post added at 05:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ----------

I think there are items in the military budget that can be cut. We can start with military bases in Europe and Asia which are not strategic to US defense interests. Let Europe and Asia fund their military to the extent they think necessary.

Also, identify military programs which are redundant without good reason and merge them.

I know your position. You've got yours and screw everyone who doesn't. I disagree with that thinking.

That's a fair point of view. So, you just got elected King, and got rid of social security. Now, what do you, as King, do about the many people who bet on the market wrong, or for whatever reason didn't save up enough for their own retirement? That was the situation before social security. Humanity has gotten no wiser since then, so that will be the situation afterwards. Will you wash your hands of them? Put them on the government dole?

Let them eat cake.

Mmmm...caaaake.

You start with financial education and money management in school, something which is very much lacking anyway. You teach people they are responsible for themselves, and that Joe down the street isn't responsible for them. Maybe restrict the eligible investments into a set of funds which are regarded as safe investments by a broad base group of economists. Maybe start new hires with a default savings plan, which individuals can change if they wish. That's what my company does. Prohibit people from early withdrawals or borrowing against their 401K.

No system is perfect. In the current system, if I die a year after starting retirement, the money I paid into my retirement fund is lost. How is the government confiscating approximately 12% of my income fair?

Ok, so what do you, as king, do with those people who, through bad luck, stupidity, or whatever, *still* don't save up enough to provide for their own retirement?

"Let them starve." is a perfectly reasonable answer. If I agreed with your view of government, that's the one I'd give. If it isn't the governments responsibility, then that's all there is to it. They can rely on private charity, family, or simply starve (or die of exposure to the elements).

It's a tax. Government's levy taxes. Taxing is pretty much they're reason for existing in the first place. :-)

This one is a regressive tax on income from labor, and part of the deal is that, instead of using it for something nice and useful, like killing foreigners, the government will give some of this money back when you're ready to retire (yes, assuming you live that long). If you're lucky and/or wise enough to have put away enough money for your own retirement, the SS money will just be a nice extra. If not, it should give you enough to survive on.

If you ever make enough money to be truly rich, the social security tax will drop to a very small portion of your total tax burden...the SS tax is capped at something like $100k, and most wealthy people derive a fairly large percentage of their income from investments anyway, and that income isn't taxed under SS.

Incidentally, one of the many ways to fix the 'about to collapse' social security system would be to raise that cap a bit.

If you could prove that it was bad luck and family or charity won't help you out, then I'd go along with some minimal level of government assistance. Otherwise you are on your own. Government should be the last place you get assistance, not the first. And if you won't assume responsibility for yourself, then why should anyone else be forced to assume responsibility for you?

that's assuming that everyone who is poor/in a bad financial situation is in that situation because of a lack of personal responsibility. that's an awfully big (and often false) assumption

The issue about the privatization of social security that most people ignore is that to privatize it would mean that the money that is being paid into social security would be diverted to the private sector. Which would mean that people currently receiving social security would either have to have their benefits eliminated or the government would have to run a much larger deficit in the mean time.

Finally, the actual redistribution that the American federal government does is very modest by most standards. Which makes the whole "I don't want mah money going to them poor folk" a bit ridiculous (as it comes from people who have certainly used public schools, public roads, the massive government subsidy called "mortgage interest deduction" on the federal taxes, federally protected bank accounts and federally subsidized students loans, things that the poor have limited or no access to).