Hey Barry, I have paid in to my Social Security fund for 50 + years now with the government guaranteeing me my money would be there for me. Now all of a sudden according to you its an entitlement. I PAID FOR IT!!!! How long you been paying for your entitlement?
Fought for years to get SS money put in an Individual accounts so that the guberment couldnt pilfer it to pay for other BS.
Never took any advantage for my military service in 69-72. No veteran preference in hiring, no VA beneys even though I have them, No VA loans, Nothing. I served, came home, went to work, and raised a family. All I want for my service is my flag from them when I pass, as to serve my country was a privledge. Can you say the same?
And if I look it up, I bet part of my 128.50 monthly pay went to SS too. Its not my entitlement, I [bleep] EARNED IT.
Swifty
An "entitlement" is simply something you are entitled to. The Gov't promised that in exchange for your payment, they'd give you a monthly benefit. Simple right?
But everyone knew and a few would even admit, from the beginning that SS is an unsustainable Ponzi scheme.
You were lied to and your money was stolen.
Don't feel too bad, you are getting far more from it than I ever will. I will continue paying into the pyramid and never see a dime in return. That's OK with me, because I can plan on that. But you've got to understand that the gravy train is about to run out of track. The math NEVER worked. I hope you come out OK.
The math did work and SS would be fine and in fact it would be paying handsomley if the politicians had not stolen all of the money out of it.
That's interesting. Have you got a link?
Even in their wildest dreams, nobody ever thought Social Security would pay more than private-sector investments.
It was sold to mostly older voters during the Depression in 1935 as a way to secure a retirement they hadn't had the foresight or means to prepare for.
Okay, fine--we all understand the propensity of folks to support government programs that promise them free stuff.
But why did the
politicians push it?
Because they cared about older voters? Of course not. Politicians don't care about anything but getting and keeping power, or else they wouldn't be politicians--because everything else politicians do can be done easier and cheaper in the productive sector.
What was in the Social Security Act for politicians?
Well, there were the votes from voters who got free stuff, of course; but politicians can hand out all sorts of free stuff when they want votes. Why Social Security?
Because it would bring in buttloads and buttloads of money to the government, that's why--money that those politicians could spend on free stuff for
other voters that would make them popular with those voters too.
The politicians were never planning to let the Social Security money sit around the government untouched; anybody who believed that was either too young to vote or nearly too stupid to breathe. That's simply not what politicians do. They were planning to plunder it from the very beginning. Sure, it would need to be paid back eventually or else voters would get very angry: but those were
future voters, and they would be angry at
future politicians, so no 1930s politicians cared.
That's one thing that's attractive about a monarchy. A monarch knows that he's going to have to deal with the consequences of his actions for the rest of his life, rather than being able to shuffle them off onto some other poor shlimazl after a few years; and when he dies, those consequences will fall not on some faceless successor, but on his own son. I'm not an advocate for monarchy any more than I'm an advocate for republics, but monarchies do have that over republics.
