• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Expansion Of Social Security

Last edited:
Perhaps you've heard of Paul Ryan, who is the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Ryan bailed on the privatization of Social Security in 2010 with his Road Map For America. You are probably thinking about medicare which he may still support privatizing.
 
Government should be out of the transfer business beyond a smallish minimum income payment and severe punishment for fraud.

I would probably agree with you if we can get Social Security back to its original scope, but question is how do you get there.
 
The biggest threat to social security is unemployment. That, and a massive increase in a cultural acceptance of cradle-to-grave welfare. The entire program is just a Ponzi-like transfer of money from workers to retirees.

But if someone like Obama is successful at diverting that money to unintended people of his choosing, then it all gets a lot messier.

Obama hates 401Ks because the vast majority of participants are white people. He can't have that. By the same measure, he doesn't want people who actually worked and paid into the system all their lives to get bigger checks than the people who lived off welfare.

The liberal intent to redistribute wealth to the undeserving will never end.
 
I would probably agree with you if we can get Social Security back to its original scope, but question is how do you get there.

Well, we can wait until the country goes down. ;)

Alternatively we can watch the Finns and see how they do it.
 
Well, we can wait until the country goes down. ;)

Alternatively we can watch the Finns and see how they do it.

"It" in this context implies deals with a 25 trillion dollar shortfall. That is 100 times their GDP. What isn't that the Fins do that you think is so great.
 
But if they aren't, then the people who are in their 60s today will not get paid.

The SS system is fully funded until at least the year 2032, and by then a very large percentage of Baby Boomers will surely be dead (they've started dying like flies already). This will take a lot of pressure off the system because the next big bubble will be Millennials, and they won't "ripen" for a much longer time to come. There is no reason whatsoever for anyone over the age of 60 to be cheated out of a penny -- except that politicians like Gov. Butter-tub Christie and other Republicans want to practice "means-testing" which has never been part of the deal and was never mentioned at all when the government was happily taking all the FICA money they could right out of our paychecks....
 
Heritage is selling something called 'true insurance', which is indistinguishable from something called 'welfare'. Cato is a cottage industry player that hasn't updated is plan in a decade. Where is the proposed legislation behind these players? Converting SS to a system of private accounts might cost as much as $30 trillion. Wake me when someone has a plan.

There is a difference between drafting an actual proposition of legislation and talking about a policy proposal.

You said the only people talking about it were democratic fundraisers. I contest that claim, i see conservatives as routinely trying to justify the privatization of social security by claiming that it will be better for the poor and save social security from insolvency.

I can believe that you are accurate with the above.
 
1) I'm glad Democrats have shifted the argument away from cutting and toward expanding this essential program.
2) Immigration is an important factor in sustaining SS. It helps ameliorate the effects of an aging population. Nations without a lot of immigration, like China, are feeling it worse than the US. And believe it or not, illegal immigrants help more than legal immigrants! Not that I'm supporting illegal immigration, by the way.
3) The really long-term forecast for SS is that it peaks about 20 years from now then roughly maintains its cost. Unlike health care...
cbo_ltbo_hc_graph_2060_.jpg
 
Last edited:
The SS system is fully funded until at least the year 2032, and by then a very large percentage of Baby Boomers will surely be dead (they've started dying like flies already). This will take a lot of pressure off the system because the next big bubble will be Millennials, and they won't "ripen" for a much longer time to come. There is no reason whatsoever for anyone over the age of 60 to be cheated out of a penny -- except that politicians like Gov. Butter-tub Christie and other Republicans want to practice "means-testing" which has never been part of the deal and was never mentioned at all when the government was happily taking all the FICA money they could right out of our paychecks....

Wishful thinking.

First, Social Security is financed, not funded so we have no idea when the Trust Fund will be exhausted. the most optimistic forecast comes from SSA and puts the exhaustion at 2034. About half of the people turning 68 this year expect to be alive in 2034, and they won't be cheated out of anything, but they will have their benefits reduced.

Second, there is no data that suggests that the passing of the Boomers will alleviate the pressure on the system. Here the wishful thinking is that I can't count. 2032 we do not even have all of the Boomers retired, much less dead.

Third, it is wishful thinking to believe that the politicians elected by voters took the right amount out of their paychecks. It is like me going to the grocer, and telling him that I paid for the bread because the people that I elected said so.

Fourth, you are free to believe what you want, but you aren't cheated out of a penny if you get nothing. These are the terms. You contributed based on the possibility that future workers would do the same. There is no guarantee, and ignoring the problem only assures you that the pressure on those future workers will be greater.
 
1) I'm glad Democrats have shifted the argument away from cutting and toward expanding this essential program.
2) Immigration is an important factor in sustaining SS. It helps ameliorate the effects of an aging population. Nations without a lot of immigration, like China, are feeling it worse than the US. And believe it or not, illegal immigrants help more than legal immigrants! Not that I'm supporting illegal immigration, by the way.
3) The really long-term forecast for SS is that it peaks about 20 years from now then roughly maintains its cost. Unlike health care...
cbo_ltbo_hc_graph_2060_.jpg

The shortfalls of SS grow to eternity.
 
The shortfalls of SS grow to eternity.

That's exactly how a spammer would reply. I show documented facts. You say, nuh-uh, with no citation.

Are you just a spammer? Or just another conservative Republican? (gee, which would be worse? a puzzle to keep one up at night...)
 
"It" in this context implies deals with a 25 trillion dollar shortfall. That is 100 times their GDP. What isn't that the Fins do that you think is so great.

I hadn't seen that. Do you have a reference?
 
I hadn't seen that. Do you have a reference?

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2015/VI_F_infinite.html#

The public debate uses a hoaky number based on cashflow over 75 years which is designed to make the problem appear smaller. It is not the cost to fix SS. It is the cost to kick the can.

Forbes Welcome

The figure is based on mortality tables today. Not sure what the author is talking about "Demographers tell us that children born today can expect to live to 100, and the child has already been born who will live to 200. " If so, SS is entirely screwed.
 
Last edited:
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2015/VI_F_infinite.html#

The public debate uses a hoaky number based on cashflow over 75 years which is designed to make the problem appear small. It is not the cost to fix SS. It is the cost to kick the can.

Forbes Welcome

The figure is based on mortality tables today. Not sure what the author is talking about "Demographers tell us that children born today can expect to live to 100, and the child has already been born who will live to 200. " If so, SS is entirely screwed.

Thank you. that was it. I thought you were referring to Finland's SS obligations. You see, I am following them to see, what they come up with. Phasing out SS and replacing it along with all social programs with a minimum income of one model or the other seems to me the best way to go. And so, I am interested to see how their experiments add up.
 
The shortfalls of SS grow to eternity.

And health care must be totally privatized above a minimum coverage the population can buy out of minimum income payments.
 
The SS system is fully funded until at least the year 2032, and by then a very large percentage of Baby Boomers will surely be dead (they've started dying like flies already). This will take a lot of pressure off the system because the next big bubble will be Millennials, and they won't "ripen" for a much longer time to come. There is no reason whatsoever for anyone over the age of 60 to be cheated out of a penny -- except that politicians like Gov. Butter-tub Christie and other Republicans want to practice "means-testing" which has never been part of the deal and was never mentioned at all when the government was happily taking all the FICA money they could right out of our paychecks....

The SS system is relatively healthy by international standards but on its way against a wall, nonetheless. We should phase it out now, when it is still relatively easy and attached to only low pain.
 
And health care must be totally privatized above a minimum coverage the population can buy out of minimum income payments.

I stay away from healthcare. All I know is that my costs are up substantially since Obamacare went into place, my options are fewer, and deductibles higher.
 
The SS system is relatively healthy by international standards but on its way against a wall, nonetheless. We should phase it out now, when it is still relatively easy and attached to only low pain.

Can you elaborate on "relatively healthy"? As compared to what? There is not low pain here. Either you are going to cut off existing retirees, or you are going to create a generation of future retirees that will be financially ruined. The only thing that makes the latter low pain is that you do not believe you will see it yourself.
 
The SS system is fully funded until at least the year 2032, and by then a very large percentage of Baby Boomers will surely be dead (they've started dying like flies already). This will take a lot of pressure off the system because the next big bubble will be Millennials, and they won't "ripen" for a much longer time to come. There is no reason whatsoever for anyone over the age of 60 to be cheated out of a penny -- except that politicians like Gov. Butter-tub Christie and other Republicans want to practice "means-testing" which has never been part of the deal and was never mentioned at all when the government was happily taking all the FICA money they could right out of our paychecks....

Its in bad shape for the forseeable future due to the very low total fertility rate. I believe its been stagnent or steadily lowering since 1970.
 
Can you elaborate on "relatively healthy"? As compared to what? There is not low pain here. Either you are going to cut off existing retirees, or you are going to create a generation of future retirees that will be financially ruined. The only thing that makes the latter low pain is that you do not believe you will see it yourself.

Relatively means here compared to the other systems I looked at. I haven't done the math in some time, but the US system was not due to become un-sustainable until most of the other OECD ones have foundered, the UK being the remarkable exception.

Low pain did not want to indicate that there would be no pain. But replaced now it would cost far fewer tears than if we wait till it is functionally insolvent.
 
Relatively means here compared to the other systems I looked at. I haven't done the math in some time, but the US system was not due to become un-sustainable until most of the other OECD ones have foundered, the UK being the remarkable exception.

Low pain did not want to indicate that there would be no pain. But replaced now it would cost far fewer tears than if we wait till it is functionally insolvent.

Previously you said phased-out. Here you are talking about replaced. Please do not tell me you want to replace SS with personal savings accounts.
 
Previously you said phased-out. Here you are talking about replaced. Please do not tell me you want to replace SS with personal savings accounts.

No, I do not want to do that, though increased savings would be one result of replacing SS. Replacement would be by installing a minimum income of some type. This would replace the other social programs as well.
Phasing out was only to indicate that an immediate discontinuation would cause to much individual hardship as a result of system change and put the legitimacy of the US government in question.
 
No, I do not want to do that, though increased savings would be one result of replacing SS. Replacement would be by installing a minimum income of some type. This would replace the other social programs as well.
Phasing out was only to indicate that an immediate discontinuation would cause to much individual hardship as a result of system change and put the legitimacy of the US government in question.

Insurance is a better model to manage the unknown cost of old-age, Why We Shouldn’t Privatize Social Security | MoneyTips (my article)

The universal basic income was covered in the WSJ by Murray about a week ago. The problem is that there is no basic. In the elderly dependence upon SS rises very rapidly because they have burned down outside savings and do not have the same number of work options.
 
Back
Top Bottom