Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (161712)	2/20/2003 12:06:17 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576346

Their failures in later years can be contributed to the fact that there weren't any built-in controls or people watching closely enough... ie no one foresaw the baby boom... if it weren't for the baby boom, Social Security likely would be working flawlessly. Well, this isn't exactly correct. Initially, I would point out that in an actuarily sound plan, the plan would be able to sustain its payout levels regardless of characteristics of its retiree population (this is, of course, the requirement for private pensions). Social Security has failed, solely because it was a social giveaway program, NOT self-funding, from the outset. Today, retirees actually think they've paid enough into the system to receive the benefits they're receiving; which is, of course, ridiculous. As a result, the program is politically untouchable and ultimately, will collapse. Social Security is nothing more than a giant Ponzi (pyramid) scheme. As such, it was never actuarily sound, even from its earliest days. This can be easily seen by looking at two basic statistics: a) Since its inception, there has been a steady growth in the number of workers required to support the benefit payout rates. This growth began early on, indicating a problem from the earliest days of Social Security, and pre-dating the baby boom. b) Since the mid-60s, the wage base necessary to sustain the benefit payout has steadily grown. It is not happenstance that this coincided with the first full-life retirees under the system. The Social Security program has been technically insolvent (if the unfunded liability was recorded, as it should have been) since the late 70s. The problems at SS are immensely complex, at as such, are beyond the understanding of the average voter and certainly beyond that of the average journalist. As a result, the public is basically unaware of what is going on with SS. But it is broke, has been for 25 years, and cannot be fixed.

To: SilentZ who wrote (161712)	2/20/2003 12:16:27 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576346

Z, <if it weren't for the baby boom, Social Security likely would be working flawlessly.> Think about that one for a minute. Social Security was supposed to be a support program in times of economic strife. As soon as the economy got better, the slow downfall of Social Security started. So you could say that liberal social programs can only succeed in times of failure, i.e. planning for failure. That's an overgeneralization, of course, but I hope you get the point. Tenchusatsu