State of the Union?....cracking apart everywhere and not enough glue left to temporarily fix it anymore....Deficits and national Debt..out of control and sooner or later will bust apart(states as well as Federal)....manufacturing base..located in China and Mexico or Indonesia...Welfare, Medicare & Social Security...their books speak for themselves...disaster coming our way, absolutely...Military...too small and spread too thin...wolf-states around the world..eyeing our predicament and licking their chops....Future for the American people(world too, for that matter)...grim....great legacy to leave.
Why Third Parties Don't Win Elections
- Thread starter TheBluesMan
- Start date
- Status
If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true!
EPYON, Maybe this will help, I believe the Founding Fathers, set up and established a Republic, not a Democracy. Here is a Link to a description that may help to solve your delima.
http://www.answers.com/topic/electoral-college
http://www.answers.com/topic/electoral-college
On Social Security
When SS was first implemented it was SUPPOSED to be self regulating. The way it did this was that the funds not paid out to decedants would go to support the system: ie .. you die before you attain retirement age and your "contribution" goes into the general fund, 'nuf said. However ...
The bleeding hearts said "Why should those funds simply go into the general fund? Shouldn't they go to the survivors; and won't that buy us some votes?"
So survivors benefits were implemented which depleted the money by which SS would remain solvent.
Later on, the bleeding hearts said "Shouldn't we make it so those with disabilities should be able to draw SS; and won't that buy us some votes?"
So SSI for the disabled was implemented thereby drawing down the account even farther.
Later on, the bleeding hearts said "We should extend benefits to those who are disabled by addictions; and won't that buy us some votes?"
So alcoholism and drug addiction became viable disabilities; but the word got out through investigative reporting that the recipients were having their SSI checks sent to the local liquor store. That didn't buy them any votes. The system was drawn down even farther.
Then came the coup 'd grace when Lyndon Johnson decided that he could borrow away all of that money that was just sitting in that great big ol' sluch fund over at Social Security so he could pay for an unpopular war. "We'll replace the money with bonds which will never mature. Ha, ha, ha."
And so it was that the demise of the Social Security System was assured. It has now been "saved" several times and it will be "saved" several more times before it is finally done away with and the revolution will be on.
When SS was first implemented it was SUPPOSED to be self regulating. The way it did this was that the funds not paid out to decedants would go to support the system: ie .. you die before you attain retirement age and your "contribution" goes into the general fund, 'nuf said. However ...
The bleeding hearts said "Why should those funds simply go into the general fund? Shouldn't they go to the survivors; and won't that buy us some votes?"
So survivors benefits were implemented which depleted the money by which SS would remain solvent.
Later on, the bleeding hearts said "Shouldn't we make it so those with disabilities should be able to draw SS; and won't that buy us some votes?"
So SSI for the disabled was implemented thereby drawing down the account even farther.
Later on, the bleeding hearts said "We should extend benefits to those who are disabled by addictions; and won't that buy us some votes?"
So alcoholism and drug addiction became viable disabilities; but the word got out through investigative reporting that the recipients were having their SSI checks sent to the local liquor store. That didn't buy them any votes. The system was drawn down even farther.
Then came the coup 'd grace when Lyndon Johnson decided that he could borrow away all of that money that was just sitting in that great big ol' sluch fund over at Social Security so he could pay for an unpopular war. "We'll replace the money with bonds which will never mature. Ha, ha, ha."
And so it was that the demise of the Social Security System was assured. It has now been "saved" several times and it will be "saved" several more times before it is finally done away with and the revolution will be on.
First, SSI is not based on disablement; it's based on need.
But regardless, it was neither DI nor SSI that bankrupted Social Security. Both of those aspects of the program are small compared to OASI benefits.
The two things that have contributed most to Social Security becoming unsustainable are the falling birth rate and the rising life expectancy.
Roe v. Wade has led to like 47 million abortions. Imagine if we had 47 million more people who had entered the workforce and were paying payroll taxes.
The life expectancy at age 65 has increased by like 6 or 8 years (I can't remember exactly) since Social Security started. But they only raised the NRA (normal retirement age) by 2 years, from 65 to 67 (and even that doesn't take effect for another decade+). Not to mention that when the EEA (Earliest Eligibility Age) of 62 was implemented, almost everyone continued to work long past it. Now, people retire in their 50's and suck off the taxpayer for the rest of their worthless lives.
People used to retire at 65 and die at 72. Now they retire at 62 and die at 80. By 2040, we will have ONE THIRD of ALL AMERICANS on OASDI, and the other TWO THIRDS will be paying for it.
That, pure and simple, is the reason you can't sustain Social Security.
Your facts are right, but that's not what caused Social Security's financial meltdown.
And you make a good point about the trust fund. There is nothing there but IOU's, backed only by the federal government's ability or willingness to borrow or print enough money to replace the funds. Since we are going to need an estimated 68 trillion dollars (above taxes) for Medicare and 4.6 trillion for Social Security (above taxes AND in addition to the trust fund), I don't see this ending in any way good.
But regardless, it was neither DI nor SSI that bankrupted Social Security. Both of those aspects of the program are small compared to OASI benefits.
The two things that have contributed most to Social Security becoming unsustainable are the falling birth rate and the rising life expectancy.
Roe v. Wade has led to like 47 million abortions. Imagine if we had 47 million more people who had entered the workforce and were paying payroll taxes.
The life expectancy at age 65 has increased by like 6 or 8 years (I can't remember exactly) since Social Security started. But they only raised the NRA (normal retirement age) by 2 years, from 65 to 67 (and even that doesn't take effect for another decade+). Not to mention that when the EEA (Earliest Eligibility Age) of 62 was implemented, almost everyone continued to work long past it. Now, people retire in their 50's and suck off the taxpayer for the rest of their worthless lives.
People used to retire at 65 and die at 72. Now they retire at 62 and die at 80. By 2040, we will have ONE THIRD of ALL AMERICANS on OASDI, and the other TWO THIRDS will be paying for it.
That, pure and simple, is the reason you can't sustain Social Security.
Your facts are right, but that's not what caused Social Security's financial meltdown.
And you make a good point about the trust fund. There is nothing there but IOU's, backed only by the federal government's ability or willingness to borrow or print enough money to replace the funds. Since we are going to need an estimated 68 trillion dollars (above taxes) for Medicare and 4.6 trillion for Social Security (above taxes AND in addition to the trust fund), I don't see this ending in any way good.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#People
Population growth rate: 0.91% (2006 est.) =
Birth rate: 14.14 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)
- Death rate: 8.26 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)
+ Net migration rate: 3.18 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2006 est.)
That's 27% population growth per 30 years. How much more population growth do we need before social security is sustainable? Would that population growth level be sustainable?
Your "47 million" abortions (which I'm not going to check, and not all of which Roe v. Wade caused), averaged over the past 33 years (because I'm not in the mood to do it right), is 1.4 million per year. That's 4.83 per 1,000 population, leading to a very rough population growth rate estimate of 1.39% for this last year. That's 41.6% population growth per 30 years, instead of 27% population growth. You really think that would solve all our problems? Why not just open the border to people ages 20-30. That would solve our problem too, right?
Whether it works or not, you would have us maintain social programs that depend on unsustainable population growth?
Some people read until they find one little thing they want to look up, and then are completely unable to continue and understand the bigger picture. You appear to be one of those people.
"That's 41.6% population growth per 30 years, instead of 27% population growth."
1) 42% growth rate vs 27% growth rate is a HUGE difference. If we tens of millions more people in the workforce, Social Security would not be sustainable (I never said it would), but it likely would be stable now. So yes, Roe v. Wade HAS partially led to Social Security's funding shortfall, and that was my point.
"You really think that would solve all our problems?"
2) I never said ANYTHING about solving problems. I was saying what the problems were. There are others that I didn't mention.
3) Your nitpicking has caused you to miss the entire discussion I was trying to have with jimpeel, which was as to the causes of the OASDI solvency problem.
In 1935, life expectancy at 65 was 59.9 years for men and 63.9 years for women. In 2002, it was 74.5 and 79.9 years, respectively. People in 1935 weren't even expected to REACH retirement age. Social Security was meant for a minority of the elderly, not all of them. In the future, scientists predict we could live over 100 years. If we leave the retirement age at 65, that means people will get benefits for 35 years. That's just impossible. The only way to fix the program ***here, I'm now advocating a solution that you can attack*** is to raise the retirement age.
"Whether it works or not, you would have us maintain social programs that depend on unsustainable population growth?"
First, what is unsustainable? In the first 150 years of America's existence, we had like 100% population growth every 50 years. Do we have too many people now? Are you saying we have to kill babies or we'll overpopulate? You sound like a UN population control advocate.
Second, you are reading into what I said. Just because I am having a discussion ABOUT Social Security does not mean I SUPPORT it. I am a libertarian. I believe that if the government is doing something, it is more than likely wrong. I hate social programs. I hate Social Security.
That doesn't mean that I won't try to help fix the problem within the framework of REALITY. Congress is not about to end Social Security. So if the only two options are bankrupting the country entirely, or fixing the program, why do you have a problem with the latter?
"That's 41.6% population growth per 30 years, instead of 27% population growth."
1) 42% growth rate vs 27% growth rate is a HUGE difference. If we tens of millions more people in the workforce, Social Security would not be sustainable (I never said it would), but it likely would be stable now. So yes, Roe v. Wade HAS partially led to Social Security's funding shortfall, and that was my point.
"You really think that would solve all our problems?"
2) I never said ANYTHING about solving problems. I was saying what the problems were. There are others that I didn't mention.
3) Your nitpicking has caused you to miss the entire discussion I was trying to have with jimpeel, which was as to the causes of the OASDI solvency problem.
In 1935, life expectancy at 65 was 59.9 years for men and 63.9 years for women. In 2002, it was 74.5 and 79.9 years, respectively. People in 1935 weren't even expected to REACH retirement age. Social Security was meant for a minority of the elderly, not all of them. In the future, scientists predict we could live over 100 years. If we leave the retirement age at 65, that means people will get benefits for 35 years. That's just impossible. The only way to fix the program ***here, I'm now advocating a solution that you can attack*** is to raise the retirement age.
"Whether it works or not, you would have us maintain social programs that depend on unsustainable population growth?"
First, what is unsustainable? In the first 150 years of America's existence, we had like 100% population growth every 50 years. Do we have too many people now? Are you saying we have to kill babies or we'll overpopulate? You sound like a UN population control advocate.
Second, you are reading into what I said. Just because I am having a discussion ABOUT Social Security does not mean I SUPPORT it. I am a libertarian. I believe that if the government is doing something, it is more than likely wrong. I hate social programs. I hate Social Security.
That doesn't mean that I won't try to help fix the problem within the framework of REALITY. Congress is not about to end Social Security. So if the only two options are bankrupting the country entirely, or fixing the program, why do you have a problem with the latter?
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
And with that... we are done with this discussion. 
- Status