Then allow me to second market's objection.
As such, I dont see a reason to take it seriously.
What main points in the article require statistics though, to make the claims it made? If there are none, why would you object?
Secondly, you make the claim that it's not factual information. Yet you provide no evidence to back this up. Why is that? It's better to ignore posts you find absurd, than to post absurd reasoning as to why you object....
This stuff can all be verified on Wikipedia
Trust fundMain article: Social Security Trust Fund
Social Security taxes are paid into the Social Security Trust Fund maintained by the U.S. Treasury (technically, the "Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund", as established by 42 U.S.C. § 401(a)). Current year expenses are paid from current Social Security tax revenues. When revenues exceed expenditures, as they have in most years, the excess is invested in special series, non-marketable U.S. Government bonds,
thus the Social Security Trust Fund indirectly finances the federal government's general purpose deficit spending. In 2007, the cumulative excess of Social Security taxes and interest received over benefits paid out stood at $2.2 trillion.[75] The Trust Fund is regarded by some as an accounting trick which holds no economic significance.
Others argue that it has specific legal significance because the Treasury securities it holds are backed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government, which has an obligation to repay its debt.The Social Security Administration's authority to make benefit payments as granted by Congress extends only to its current revenues and existing Trust Fund balance, i.e., redemption of its holdings of Treasury securities. Therefore, Social Security's ability to make full payments once annual benefits exceed revenues depends in part on the federal government's ability to make good on the bonds that it has issued to the Social Security trust funds. As with any other federal obligation, the federal government's ability to repay Social Security is based on the power to tax and the commitment of the Congress to meet its obligations.
In 2009 the Office of the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration calculated an unfunded obligation of $15.1 trillion for the Social Security program. The unfunded obligation is the difference between the present value of the cost of Social Security and the present value of the assets in the Trust Fund and the future scheduled tax income of the program. In the Actuarial Note explaining the calculation,
the Office of the Chief Actuary wrote that "The term obligation is used in lieu of the term liability, because liability generally indicates a contractual obligation (as in the case of private pensions and insurance) that cannot be altered by the plan sponsor without the agreement of the plan participants."[76][77]
Wow. Did you catch that? The Chief Actuary makes it clear that it's an obligation, NOT a liability. Obligation indeed. Private companies could be held to liability, and wouldn't fund massive debt spending, and would be voluntary. But government?
Where are you facts now, hoplite.
Compared to my insurance, I pay voluntarily, have market choice, it is not used to fund massvive government overspending, is contractually liable to me, I can start a company today to compete with it, etc.
SS on the other hand, is involuntary, is funded by taxation, is not contractually liable to me, is used to fund government debt spending, I cannot compete with it, I cannot readily get rid of it, etc.
