- This topic has 680 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 10 months ago by
jstoesz.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 7, 2011 at 9:44 AM #664533February 7, 2011 at 10:04 AM #663381
Anonymous
Guest[quote=SK in CV][quote=EconProf][A bunch of popular myths about social security along with some make-believe facts.][/quote]
[A reasoned, fact-based rebuttal]
[/quote]EconProf: Social Security, even in the worst-case scenario, will last 100 years from inception. How exactly is that short-term thinking?
Ponzi schemes are frauds. The people who operate ponzi schemes lie to their investors.
Nobody is lying about social security. Every single detail about the program is available to the public.
The issue is one of simple demographics:
– People are living longer.
– Modern health care provides more options to live longer, but at very high costs.
– People want to retire at the same age their parents did.These are fundamental and inevitable problems for society. Social Security did not create these problems.
The ratio of the typical person’s working years, to their unproductive and unhealthy elderly years is shifting. There is more cost and and more risk for everyone. Every generation needs to make more money in the first portion of their lives to pay for the remainder.
This problem exists with ANY retirement system.
Moving the system to private accounts will not solve the problem. Private accounts do nothing to change the ratio, or the risk (in fact they increase the risk). Private accounts do nothing to change the cost and uncertainty of our retirement years.
The costs of a “traditional” retirement are rising exponentially. For some reason, people think that private accounts will magically create wealth to cover these costs – why?
Because the financial middlemen – the traders and mutual fund peddlers (and their lobbyists) – would love to get their hands on some of that wealth.
And if they do, will there be more, or less wealth for the rest of us?
February 7, 2011 at 10:04 AM #663443Guest[quote=SK in CV][quote=EconProf][A bunch of popular myths about social security along with some make-believe facts.][/quote]
[A reasoned, fact-based rebuttal]
[/quote]EconProf: Social Security, even in the worst-case scenario, will last 100 years from inception. How exactly is that short-term thinking?
Ponzi schemes are frauds. The people who operate ponzi schemes lie to their investors.
Nobody is lying about social security. Every single detail about the program is available to the public.
The issue is one of simple demographics:
– People are living longer.
– Modern health care provides more options to live longer, but at very high costs.
– People want to retire at the same age their parents did.These are fundamental and inevitable problems for society. Social Security did not create these problems.
The ratio of the typical person’s working years, to their unproductive and unhealthy elderly years is shifting. There is more cost and and more risk for everyone. Every generation needs to make more money in the first portion of their lives to pay for the remainder.
This problem exists with ANY retirement system.
Moving the system to private accounts will not solve the problem. Private accounts do nothing to change the ratio, or the risk (in fact they increase the risk). Private accounts do nothing to change the cost and uncertainty of our retirement years.
The costs of a “traditional” retirement are rising exponentially. For some reason, people think that private accounts will magically create wealth to cover these costs – why?
Because the financial middlemen – the traders and mutual fund peddlers (and their lobbyists) – would love to get their hands on some of that wealth.
And if they do, will there be more, or less wealth for the rest of us?
February 7, 2011 at 10:04 AM #664048Guest[quote=SK in CV][quote=EconProf][A bunch of popular myths about social security along with some make-believe facts.][/quote]
[A reasoned, fact-based rebuttal]
[/quote]EconProf: Social Security, even in the worst-case scenario, will last 100 years from inception. How exactly is that short-term thinking?
Ponzi schemes are frauds. The people who operate ponzi schemes lie to their investors.
Nobody is lying about social security. Every single detail about the program is available to the public.
The issue is one of simple demographics:
– People are living longer.
– Modern health care provides more options to live longer, but at very high costs.
– People want to retire at the same age their parents did.These are fundamental and inevitable problems for society. Social Security did not create these problems.
The ratio of the typical person’s working years, to their unproductive and unhealthy elderly years is shifting. There is more cost and and more risk for everyone. Every generation needs to make more money in the first portion of their lives to pay for the remainder.
This problem exists with ANY retirement system.
Moving the system to private accounts will not solve the problem. Private accounts do nothing to change the ratio, or the risk (in fact they increase the risk). Private accounts do nothing to change the cost and uncertainty of our retirement years.
The costs of a “traditional” retirement are rising exponentially. For some reason, people think that private accounts will magically create wealth to cover these costs – why?
Because the financial middlemen – the traders and mutual fund peddlers (and their lobbyists) – would love to get their hands on some of that wealth.
And if they do, will there be more, or less wealth for the rest of us?
February 7, 2011 at 10:04 AM #664185Guest[quote=SK in CV][quote=EconProf][A bunch of popular myths about social security along with some make-believe facts.][/quote]
[A reasoned, fact-based rebuttal]
[/quote]EconProf: Social Security, even in the worst-case scenario, will last 100 years from inception. How exactly is that short-term thinking?
Ponzi schemes are frauds. The people who operate ponzi schemes lie to their investors.
Nobody is lying about social security. Every single detail about the program is available to the public.
The issue is one of simple demographics:
– People are living longer.
– Modern health care provides more options to live longer, but at very high costs.
– People want to retire at the same age their parents did.These are fundamental and inevitable problems for society. Social Security did not create these problems.
The ratio of the typical person’s working years, to their unproductive and unhealthy elderly years is shifting. There is more cost and and more risk for everyone. Every generation needs to make more money in the first portion of their lives to pay for the remainder.
This problem exists with ANY retirement system.
Moving the system to private accounts will not solve the problem. Private accounts do nothing to change the ratio, or the risk (in fact they increase the risk). Private accounts do nothing to change the cost and uncertainty of our retirement years.
The costs of a “traditional” retirement are rising exponentially. For some reason, people think that private accounts will magically create wealth to cover these costs – why?
Because the financial middlemen – the traders and mutual fund peddlers (and their lobbyists) – would love to get their hands on some of that wealth.
And if they do, will there be more, or less wealth for the rest of us?
February 7, 2011 at 10:04 AM #664523Guest[quote=SK in CV][quote=EconProf][A bunch of popular myths about social security along with some make-believe facts.][/quote]
[A reasoned, fact-based rebuttal]
[/quote]EconProf: Social Security, even in the worst-case scenario, will last 100 years from inception. How exactly is that short-term thinking?
Ponzi schemes are frauds. The people who operate ponzi schemes lie to their investors.
Nobody is lying about social security. Every single detail about the program is available to the public.
The issue is one of simple demographics:
– People are living longer.
– Modern health care provides more options to live longer, but at very high costs.
– People want to retire at the same age their parents did.These are fundamental and inevitable problems for society. Social Security did not create these problems.
The ratio of the typical person’s working years, to their unproductive and unhealthy elderly years is shifting. There is more cost and and more risk for everyone. Every generation needs to make more money in the first portion of their lives to pay for the remainder.
This problem exists with ANY retirement system.
Moving the system to private accounts will not solve the problem. Private accounts do nothing to change the ratio, or the risk (in fact they increase the risk). Private accounts do nothing to change the cost and uncertainty of our retirement years.
The costs of a “traditional” retirement are rising exponentially. For some reason, people think that private accounts will magically create wealth to cover these costs – why?
Because the financial middlemen – the traders and mutual fund peddlers (and their lobbyists) – would love to get their hands on some of that wealth.
And if they do, will there be more, or less wealth for the rest of us?
February 7, 2011 at 4:12 PM #663500CA renter
Participant[quote=pri_dk]Perhaps Jerry could learn from Rick how to balance a budget:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-texas-budget-20110207,0,4154023.story
…or perhaps not.[/quote]
Great article. Speaks for itself.
February 7, 2011 at 4:12 PM #663562Participant[quote=pri_dk]Perhaps Jerry could learn from Rick how to balance a budget:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-texas-budget-20110207,0,4154023.story
…or perhaps not.[/quote]
Great article. Speaks for itself.
February 7, 2011 at 4:12 PM #664168Participant[quote=pri_dk]Perhaps Jerry could learn from Rick how to balance a budget:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-texas-budget-20110207,0,4154023.story
…or perhaps not.[/quote]
Great article. Speaks for itself.
February 7, 2011 at 4:12 PM #664305Participant[quote=pri_dk]Perhaps Jerry could learn from Rick how to balance a budget:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-texas-budget-20110207,0,4154023.story
…or perhaps not.[/quote]
Great article. Speaks for itself.
February 7, 2011 at 4:12 PM #664644Participant[quote=pri_dk]Perhaps Jerry could learn from Rick how to balance a budget:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-texas-budget-20110207,0,4154023.story
…or perhaps not.[/quote]
Great article. Speaks for itself.
February 9, 2011 at 2:55 PM #664094Djshakes
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=pri_dk]Perhaps Jerry could learn from Rick how to balance a budget:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-texas-budget-20110207,0,4154023.story
…or perhaps not.[/quote]
Great article. Speaks for itself.[/quote]
I think it speaks for how facked this country is no matter what side of the Isle you are on.
I would want to fact check some of this as it is coming from the LA times. I’m a little confused as to how they call it a deficit when they haven’t spent the money yet. Sounds like they are just not going to be able to spend as much as the previous year. I thought a deficit was when you actually spent money you didn’t have.
February 9, 2011 at 2:55 PM #664156Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=pri_dk]Perhaps Jerry could learn from Rick how to balance a budget:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-texas-budget-20110207,0,4154023.story
…or perhaps not.[/quote]
Great article. Speaks for itself.[/quote]
I think it speaks for how facked this country is no matter what side of the Isle you are on.
I would want to fact check some of this as it is coming from the LA times. I’m a little confused as to how they call it a deficit when they haven’t spent the money yet. Sounds like they are just not going to be able to spend as much as the previous year. I thought a deficit was when you actually spent money you didn’t have.
February 9, 2011 at 2:55 PM #664763Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=pri_dk]Perhaps Jerry could learn from Rick how to balance a budget:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-texas-budget-20110207,0,4154023.story
…or perhaps not.[/quote]
Great article. Speaks for itself.[/quote]
I think it speaks for how facked this country is no matter what side of the Isle you are on.
I would want to fact check some of this as it is coming from the LA times. I’m a little confused as to how they call it a deficit when they haven’t spent the money yet. Sounds like they are just not going to be able to spend as much as the previous year. I thought a deficit was when you actually spent money you didn’t have.
February 9, 2011 at 2:55 PM #664900Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=pri_dk]Perhaps Jerry could learn from Rick how to balance a budget:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-texas-budget-20110207,0,4154023.story
…or perhaps not.[/quote]
Great article. Speaks for itself.[/quote]
I think it speaks for how facked this country is no matter what side of the Isle you are on.
I would want to fact check some of this as it is coming from the LA times. I’m a little confused as to how they call it a deficit when they haven’t spent the money yet. Sounds like they are just not going to be able to spend as much as the previous year. I thought a deficit was when you actually spent money you didn’t have.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.