Whitehouse’s Social Security Blinders
Everybody should print out this snippet of a John Mulligan interview with U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D, RI) as a cheat sheet on Democrat talking points about Social Security. It’s all there.
Continue reading on the Ocean State Current…
Social Security has a “surplus”? That program is all Gov’t IOU’s–there isn’t a dollar that comes in that isn’t spent the minute these people get their hands on it. It’s a giant ponzi scheme–or as it will come to be known as, a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the ‘poor.’ Social “security” will be a program that these people paid into for all their working lives yet future “means testing” will ensure they get little or nothing back for their “investment.” Yeah socialism!
Don’t worry too much. We younger Americans fully understand that Social Security isn’t going to be there for us in 40-50 years, or if it does exist in some form, the benefits won’t buy us a cup of coffee. It’s not exactly a secret that “The Greatest Generation” (ha!) paid essentially nothing in, licked the SS-Medicare trough clean, and are selling the trough for scrap metal before they kick off. I have my own Roth IRA, 401k, stocks, and savings. Many my age won’t save and will be cared for by nanny government. Humanity trudges on.
“Social Security has a “surplus”? That program is all Gov’t IOU’s”
Posted by Mike at November 23, 2012 11:16 AM
LOL. Baby welcome to Greek/Spanish socialist economics where up is down, down is up and the perpetual solution is to TAX THE RIIIIIIIICH!
I have my own Roth IRA, 401k, stocks, and savings
Posted by Dan at November 23, 2012 1:50 PM
Yeah that SOUNDS good; till you realize the dollar is likely to turn into she-it in 5 or 10 years. Swiss Francs looks like a better choice.
“I have my own Roth IRA, 401k, stocks, and savings. Many my age won’t save and will be cared for by nanny government.”
I have my own savings as well, much of it “after tax”. But when I hear numbers like only 9 out of every 12 working people are not saving anything at all and 11 out of 12 aren’t saving enough, I’m fully expecting my “after tax” savings to get taxed yet again when I start drawing on it. So spare me the “America provided an environment for you to earn and save all that money, it’s time you take care of others”. I’m expecting anarchy on the streets in 25-30 years
SS has been a very successful l program and a very popular government program. So obviously cranky anti government people want to present it as a problem. And then those cranks expect to get it’s benefits.
That’s precisely the error of “progressive” thinking. Social Security has worked like an engine-less car driving downhill. With a growing population, it’s easy for current SS taxes to pay for current retirees. When the population stops expanding and/or growing more wealthy, the hill goes in the other direction, and not only has the government spent all of the money that was meant to help it coast, but there’s little reason to believe that the upward hill will crest and head back down.
That’s why us younger cranks actually expect never to receive a penny in Social Security payments.
But the important error is to think that just because something has worked for a while and is popular it will continue to work. Indeed, it’s interesting to observe the ostensible liberals becoming such impractical reactionaries.
David – Ponzi schemes continue to be popular and pay amazing returns – until they suddenly don’t anymore. I’m not saying it’s literally the same thing, but there are many similarities. SS worked well for a generation or two by taxing subsequent generations. The people who got in early made out like bandits. Now we’re at the breaking even point. The boomers will come out behind, and my generation will get basically no return. It’s all basic math, even the looniest progressives don’t deny that it will run out of money unless taxes are raised on future generations. Okay, so we raise taxes again, again, and again, and then what?
Oh for god’s sake, just raise the taxable limit from its current rate to $1,000,000 or so – upper limit is arguable and subject to debate, but raise it nevertheless, provide a “donut” hole at $100,000 to $250,000 (numbers also negotiable, but keep the donut hole) and shut up about it.
Okay, so we raise taxes again, again, and again, and then what?
Posted by Dan at November 24, 2012 7:14 PM
Raise them again you stupid rayzist xenophobe anti-science bigots.