Slashdot Mirror
Mathematics of the Social Security "Crisis"
ScottyB writes "Here's a good start for reading into the economics and history of the much-discussed 'crisis' in Social Security. It's from the NY Times magazine, so you know the drill...'A Question of Numbers.'"
What's wrong with just letting people save money on their own for their retirement? I say we end Social Security and let people plan for themselves.
who brought you the WMD crisis in Iraq.
And, even if we give Bush the benefit of the doubt and believe that he's well-informed and being honest, who believes that the Bush administration's planning for a revamp of social security would be any better than its planning for the Iraq war?
From whence springs this unmerited confidence?
Social Security Plan, by George Bush
Step 1: Redo Social Security: Concept - "Shock and Awe"
Step 2: Old people greet me with flowers and candy everywhere
Step 3: My biggest contributors profit!
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
Tax cuts or not, couldn't you always solve this problem by raising taxes?
I for on am tired of being expected to pick up the bill for people who refuse to provide for themselves or their family. Yes, shit happens, but taking care of those people is a job for charity, not the government. You seem to be confusing the two.
Want to help children? You can start by ending the bullshit myth that Social Security is going to be around to help then when they fail.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
The story wasn't fake. One piece of evidence was not corroborated (never proven false by the way) and the right wing spin machine went into overdrive to "discredit" the story.
Fact is, Dubya was AWOL, and no one had the guts to say it loud enough.
Acquiescence leads to obliteration
Over a year ago, I was listening to a spot on NPR. Basically, they contended that the Conservatives were planning to push the nation to the edge of bankruptcy, deep into crisis. At that point, the ONLY solution would be to completely undo the last vestiges of the New Deal and Great Society. Social Security and Medicaire gone. The speaker felt that they were being awfully arrogant thinking that they could fine-tune the crisis point that well - that they would be able to bring us to the brink, and then bring us back as they planned. Some more of this brinksmanship is currently evident in the planned devaluation of the dollar. (from a different NPR report) Again, one must question whether or not the Conservatives really have that find hand of control on the US and worldwide economies, to be able to play with things this big, this precisely.
So keep track of the national debt, and watch for the time when it equals the size of the Social Security trust fund, and listen for the Conservative Drums to thump their loudest as it approaches.
How to control spending?
The best method we've come up with so far is gridlock. Congress from one party, and the President from the opposite. I thumped this one before the election. Elements of the Press thumped it in the runup to 2000. The nation has classically done "the best" when one party doesn't have exclusive control. Look for things to get worse, before they get better.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200501120004
Unfortunately they discredited the (true) story out of cowardice. The story was rock solid without the documents, and the source of those documents (or their underlying "larger truth" has not fully been proven.
**Note to mod. Go ahead, mark me as "troll" again you gutless right-wing bootlicker.
Acquiescence leads to obliteration
Coughing up blood, I imagine you're referring to the Clinton years when he proposed privatization as well. When he was president, things did look very dire. But guess what? He reduced govenrment spending (in real, inflation adjusted dollars) to the point where the general budget had a surplus, which was going to pay for social security, like it should have. The problem was fixed, as indicated by the Social Security trustees revisions in their report saying that the life expectancy of the program has increased 7 years since 1997, meaning the problem was solved, or at least, progressively getting better due to reforms made during the Reasgan and Clinton presidencies.
Th
How about this: Take every single penny that you earn and just give it to the government. They'll feed you, clothe you, give you some basic shelter, etc. How about that? You might as well, since you trust the idiots in DC with your retirement you might as well hand your entire life over to them.
Now be a good boy and give Mommy back her AOL account
Funny. I'm actually at work, earning a living, which in part is going to my private retirement funds since I'm capable of taking care of myself. Can't speak for you. You sound like the type that will stand in the government hand-out line screaming "gimme gimme gimme!"
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
So your contention is that without the government, there exists no charity?
Are you breathing?
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
No, its not broken. You are just misinformed. Go back and read the article.
Time magazine, bastion of liberal thought? How will I become informed reading that magazine?
Social Security is a ponzi scheme where the people entrusted to run it are spending the profit rather than investing it back into the ponzi scheme.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
NONE of this would be a problem IF the government could balance the budget.
Looking back over the past 25 years or so it is clear that the government CAN balance the budget. It is just the Republicans that cannot.
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
It appears from the looks of things that both were wrong. Although it looks like Bush ahs done everything he coudl to make things worse. The median projected difference in Social Security benefits between now and 2050 or so, appears to be almost the same as the Bush tax cut, were it to be extended.
Thought that was an interesting point.
"A bit liberal by US standards"
:-)
So in other words, a balanced news source. And I mean truly balanced, unlike "fair and balanced" which is anything but.
Shitdrummer.
-nt-