Why does our govenment refer to Social Security as an Entitlment?

it's already destroyed.
The government takes all of the funds and spends them.
It purchases it's own bonds with it's own money then promises to pay itself back.
Don't you wish you could do that ?

 

Or they won't.

 

That's what Republicans do. They want to destroy programs that help average Americans and lie about those programs in order to accomplish that goal

 

oh cripes, another argument for all of the bad guys being on one side of the aisle.

 

Somebody will have to save it someday instead of just kicking the can down the road. Democrats have decided to do nothing and vilify anyone that proposes a fix. The longer we wait, the worse the problem so who is actually acting responsible?

 

All large imagery aside, I'm well aware of the trustee report. I usually look at it's key findings every year when it's issued, and it consistently says that Social Security won't be able to meet it's obligations in 2034 (or 2033, it changes depending on updating financing).

I'm sorry that to you math is..racist or whatever it is that makes you unable to accept actuarial accounting.

 

Actually, SS is the only safety net many will have.
Many do not have pension plans & some do not have 401K plans.
Time will tell if our politicians have enough morals to fix it.
Of course, many are just pawns to big money & corporations.

 

Well gee...maybe it's because it's been Republicans attacking Social Security with basically the same arguments for 100 years huh?

And Medicare for 50 years

 

If you were honest...you'd also say that it could fund fully 75% of it's obligations in 2034 and the 25% could be made up very simply by raising the cap on payroll deductions.

 

They'd have a much bigger net had they kept their contributions

 

If the damn fund is filled with gov debt that the gov has to fund by selling more debt, might as well just fund the whole thing with debt and let people keep their money

 

I've already said that that it will be able to fund 70% of it's obligations in 2034. I've not worked out how much additional taxes it would take to pay 100% of promised benefits but the longer we wait, the higher it will be. That's actually the most true thing that you've posted in this thread. Much more true than, "maybe it's because it's been Republicans attacking Social Security with basically the same arguments for 100 years"

Man that was funny! Wanna guess when Social Security started? Hint, not 1917.

 

All the money is spent when it comes in. Either it goes to paying current SS recipients, or it gets spent by Congress on other programs. There's nothing "earned" except your unwavering, yet entirely misplaced, faith in politicians to care about your comfort in retirement.

 

Social Security was created by the ultimate progressive socialist President, FDR. I guess you fall for the flim flams just like the liberals you complain about.

 

People might get wise to the whole sham. Not likely, but it's possible. Better to fleece them like sheep every year, just so they know who the boss is.

 

Taxing people is good fodder for election campaigns

 

Wow, talk about having your head in the sand. I spew facts and you spew anger. Would you care to actually look up the facts I mentioned and see if they are wrong?

This is absolute bullshit. It doesn't matter whether the information is secret or publicly available, what makes it a Ponzi scheme is that it pays off the early investors with money taken from new investors without any money actually being earned, making the system only viable as long as new suckers can be brought into the system. Once the tap of new suckers dries up, the whole system collapses under its own weight. This is the very definition of Social Security. So yes, SS is very much a Ponzi scheme.

 

Spent decades trying to educate people on this basic fact. Concepts such as means testing and raising contribution caps without raising resulting benefits are based on the fallacious belief it is an entitlement. It is a retirement system.

 

Nope if you do not work and do not contribute you are not entitled to any SS benefits.

 

There are no "investors" in Social Security. Just taxpayers. Like every other government program.

The people, through their elected representatives, decided they wanted to provide income insurance to retirees. So they instituted a tax to pay for it. It's a payroll tax, so only people who work pay into it, and only people who work get benefits. Current taxpayers pay the tax, current retirees get the benefits.

This is no different than any other government program. For instance, the people, through their elected representatives, decided they wanted to provide early childhood education for pre-K kids. So they instituted a tax to pay for it. Current taxpayers pay the tax, current parents with small children get the benefits.

Neither is a Ponzi scheme.

 

And of course being a retirement system if you raise the contribution then you raise the beneifit, its not a welfare program. Seems only fair to me.

Disability is totally out of hand and full of abuse of the taxpayer.

 

Very well said!

 

Actually any surplus funds are put in US Treasury Bills considered about the safest investment one could make. Try tossing out the idea that at least some of these surplus funds should be invested long term in broadbased stockmarket funds and watch the left have a fit.
If not US T-bills where else should the surplus funds be placed?

 

It is very difficult to take seriously anyone who thinks the entire problem is the opposite team.

 

You're right. Health "insurance" is not insurance. it's a plan. Insurance is indemnification against unexpected loss. Real insurance companies invest against future payouts, often managing very large funds. Politicians like the word "insurance" because it makes you believe that you are protected from something at a very low cost. However, modern health insurance isn't much different than socialized medicine. There may still be exceptions in some states where cheap, actual insurance still exists.