Here's an articel from the WP about Social Security: Opportunity, Not a Crisis By George F. Will

---

Gruesse vom Saenger

For questions about Boinc look in the BOINC-Wiki

>Any worker by law in the UK has to put away through tax and National Inssurance. >How is that lazy?

I pay for welfare, food stamps, and government housing too, but I don't use them, BECAUSE I have a job. Those of us paying for welfare are already supporting ourselves in additon to the ones to lazy to work.

>The majority in our societies do not earn the figures that the government tell us >they do and oft can not afford to put money away though I do agree that those >that can should if not only for those extras that make basic life more enjoyable.

Not my fault you don't have the skills to get a better job. Take out a student loan and go to college. If you are a minority in America, they will pay YOU to go to school.

>The calling people "lazy" aspect is a swallowing of the general negativisms >against people who are poorer and those without a job. The state needs a pool of >mobile unemployed to fill in the gaps in the ecconomy.

HELLO, if they are unemployeed, then they ARE NOT filling in the gaps, they are making them BIGGER, as in ADDING to the problem.

>Most longevity is attributed to clean water, good sanitation, immunisation......

Are you trying to imply those are not health concerns? We bath regularly now because of the knowledge we have gained over the years, concerning hygene, not because a non-renewable resource like water has suddenly become more abundant.

>Take a look at the success ancient societies have had with longevity.

LAF, I think that's what YOU better do. Folks didn't get married at 17 because they were living to be 80.

>We could say we are all 'lazy' as labour is subsidised by tech advancement and >resources and can not be attributed equally.

You could always exercise and eat right which would reduce your need for health care. What does that have to do with a person not saving enough money so they do not become government dependent?

>All of our work only amounts to anything for us if that subsidy remains true for >our children and grand children as 'they' will be paying our pensions not 'us'.

I'm glad you realize that, now take a look at the population demographics for civilized countries. You will see the population is getting older, as in fewer folks under 30 with jobs than over 50. I asked earlier.....what happens to your bank account when you spend more than you put in?

>Same here in the UK but we have a generally stable birth rate and the average >lifespan of a man is around 70 not 100. That is only 5 years as far as my maths >go.

Your math is right, the country is wrong. The Average lifespan for American males is 80.

>At the end of the day nearly "all" of the SS income is spent back into the local >ecconomy or go via tax.

But I am still suffering through no fault of my own. I didn't buy the goods or service, nor did I consume them or benefit from their sale or use. In fact, I probably think some should be removed fromt he market all together......but I never got to make that choice. Someone else spent my money.

You see, I don't care about those who can't support themselves. That apartment will be rented, I don't need someone in there trashing the place because they are getting it for free.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

> Here's an articel from the WP about <a> href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22532-2005Jan19.html">Social
> Security: Opportunity, Not a Crisis By George F. Will[/url]
>

While I agree to an extent, it's not a crisis, I just don't happen to be one of those folks who let's the squeaky wheel fall completly off my car before trying to do something about it.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

While I agree to an extent, it's not a crisis, I just don't happen to be one of those folks who let's the squeaky wheel fall completly off my car before trying to do something about it.
Well said!

---

> While I agree to an extent, it's not a crisis, I just don't happen to be one
> of those folks who let's the squeaky wheel fall completly off my car before
> trying to do something about it.

Agreed, but this 'Something' is not necessarily the purchase of a new car.
I'd look at te wheel carefully, that has proven so effiocient up to now, to find out what's wrong. Perhaps just some grease or new breaks, perhaps a new double wishbone suspension, who knows.
And as I posted earlier (#72024): Privatisation is the wrong way, it's just institutionalized egoism. Nothing a good society should be proud of.

---

Gruesse vom Saenger

For questions about Boinc look in the BOINC-Wiki

> I'd look at te wheel carefully, that has proven so effiocient up to now



It's simple Supply versus Demand. Those 65 and over make up 12.4% of the American population, while those 5 and under make up only 6.8%, and the gap continues to grow every year. That tells me there are potentially twice as many people on SS as the potential number of future employees paying into SS......and that's assumming 100% of those kids actually get jobs and contribute to society, which we know will NEVER happen.

In other words, the wheel was efficent until more people started riding than paying.

4.5% of every paycheck I make goes into my retirement fund, and I took out an additional $100 a month in insurance.....preparing for my golden years

:)

.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

> Your math is right, the country is wrong. The Average lifespan for American
> males is 80.

CIA-Factbook states this for the USA:

Life expectancy at birth:

total population: 77.43 years
male: 74.63 years
female: 80.36 years (2004 est.)

---

Gruesse vom Saenger

For questions about Boinc look in the BOINC-Wiki

> total population: 77.43 years
> male: 74.63 years
> female: 80.36 years (2004 est.)

Men live six years less than Women
After 2 failed marriages I know where
those six less years come from...Women!

Just Kidding I love women!

---

>
> > total population: 77.43 years
> > male: 74.63 years
> > female: 80.36 years (2004 est.)
>
> Men live six years less than Women
> After 2 failed marriages I know where
> those six less years come from...Women!
>
> Just Kidding I love women!
>

Men die before women because they WANT too.. :)

Seriously I love all woman except two...

---

I'd rather speak my mind because it hurts too much to bite my tongue.

American Spirit BBQ Proudly Serving those that courageously defend freedom.

> I pay for welfare, food stamps, and government housing too, but I don't use
> them, BECAUSE I have a job. Those of us paying for welfare are already
> supporting ourselves in additon to the ones to lazy to work.

I pay for the hospitals and teachers others use more than I. I guess its a matter of values.

I guess you could be right though about these people being lazy. I always thought my grandfather was lazy.. Given he was unemployed many times during the 20s and 30s it kind of proves the point: Unemployment has nothing to do with ecconomic factors and everything to do with the fact my grand father's generation were just a lazy bunch of tramps.

Now thats clear I can save my cash and not give a jot to those lazy people in Africa. I'll just save even more for my old age and spend it on a nice secluded community house with gaurd dogs to keep the rifraf and peasants out.

Perhaps I'll be able to buy a castle with my saved dosh and blame the lazy peasants and surfs for all the worlds problems.. :)~

cRunchy

you folks are not considering the proper ratios by trying to key longevity figures straight into the mix. you're using 'fuzzy math' as they say.

Longevity numbers are formulated in such a way that rising infant survival of today accounts for most of the change.

In FDR's day infant mortality was greater, dragging down the average. Today's infant mortality is what has greatly improved.

I suspect even with improved health care the numbers would show even less difference if you calculated what's pertinent to the question.

A better way to compare numbers would be to figure life expectancy for those after reaching age 60 or 65..... how much has that figure really changed?

I don't have that number, but you have to use calculations that represent what we're looking at, not just some number representative of many other factors.

Social Security is not welfare, and not meant to be temporary. When the stock market crashed and the depression hit, people who had been productive workers lost everything.

Social Security was created as insurance, a pool of people paying in for the express purpose of having guaranteed benefits in old age/ or disability. It's not a socialist plot to have the workers support the lazy... what a crock. Somebody has fed someone a steady diet of misinformation founded in prejudice.

Any system will be gamed by a small percentage of people, but to try to lay off or compound prejudice by generalizing in that manner is just so much childish bias, it's not grounded in supportable fact.

---

> male: 74.63 years
> female: 80.36 years (2004 est.)

So I got the gender wrong.....Females can receive SS too ya know?

>I pay for the hospitals and teachers others use more than I. I guess its a matter >of values.

Education is mandatory in the US (this is where you start preparations to NOT be on Welfare, Food Stamps, Social Security) and I have medical insurance through my JOB......costs $20 to see the Doctor.

>Given he was unemployed many times during the 20s and 30s it kind of proves the >point: Unemployment has nothing to do with ecconomic factors and everything to do >with the fact my grand father's generation were just a lazy bunch of tramps.

Ok, that's 20 years.....what did he do with the other 40-60? I mean hey, I didn't work the first 25 years of my life either.

>It's not a socialist plot to have the workers support the lazy

Now I didn't imply that it is some type of socialist plot, I said it's welfare and it's abused like welfare. That's not the fault of the government, but rather, the fault of those who didn't prepare for their own future.

Sorry, I'm not some bleeding heart liberal. If you cannot pull your own weight, or find someone to do it for you, then nature should be allowed to take it's natural course as it has done for millions of years.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

> you folks are not considering the proper ratios by trying to key longevity
> figures straight into the mix. you're using 'fuzzy math' as they say.
>
> Longevity numbers are formulated in such a way that rising infant survival of
> today accounts for most of the change.
>
> In FDR's day infant mortality was greater, dragging down the average. Today's
> infant mortality is what has greatly improved.
>
> I suspect even with improved health care the numbers would show even less
> difference if you calculated what's pertinent to the question.
>
> A better way to compare numbers would be to figure life expectancy for those
> after reaching age 60 or 65..... how much has that figure really changed?
>
> I don't have that number, but you have to use calculations that represent what
> we're looking at, not just some number representative of many other factors.
>

Ok, here are the numbers you want..

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus04trend.pdf#027

While it is true that the HUGE gains in average life-span since 1900 have been in the most part due to reduction in infant mortality, there are other factors at work that, in fact, ARE lengthening the life-spans of the older people.

Using the 'all races, both genders'

In 1900, the average life expectancy (AT BIRTH) was 47.3 years.
In 1950, it had risen to 68.2 years.
In 2002, it had risen to 77.3 years.

As I said (and you did too) this was in large part due to reductions in the infant mortality rate. However, if one looks at only those people that are 65+ there is still a gain.

A person that was 65 in 1950 could expect to live another 13.9 years (78.9 years total).
A person that was 65 in 2002 could expect to live another 18.2 years (83.2 years total).

These numbers do not include anybody that died prior to age 65, therefore the 'infant mortality' factor is not present. This shows a gain of 4.3 years of life expectancy, for those that make it to 65, in the 52 years from 1950 to 2002.

Also, there is data for those that make it to 75. Between 1980 and 2002, those that made it to 75 gained another 1.1 years (10.4 to 11.5) of life-expectancy.

So, yes, the older citizens of the USA *are* living longer, on average. When SS was first started, the FDR administration set the 'retirement age' at 65 (a bit above agerage life-expectancy at the time). Since then, retirement age has been bumped up slightly... For instance, the 'full retirement age' for my age group is 67. But still, this is a far cry from the average life expectancy. Perhaps it is time to bump it up again, to something around the average life expectancy. Maybe 70 years for my age group, and perhaps 78 for kids born today. Also, getting rid of that 'early retirement at reduced benefit at age 62.5' option would save a lot of money as well.

The possibility of raising the the ceiling on SS-taxable salary/wages exists, but I would only support this if all 'means tests' were removed, and everyone that paid into the system would get the full benefit they earned through their contributions, regardless of income or net worth at the time of retirement. Fair is, after all, fair. If you wish to expect someone at a ball game to buy the overpriced popcorn, hot-dogs, and soda-pop/beer from the concession stand (thereby subsidizing the ticket prices for everyone else at the game) fairness dictates that you let them watch the game (thereby gaining benefit) as well.

> Social Security is not welfare, and not meant to be temporary. When the stock
> market crashed and the depression hit, people who had been productive workers
> lost everything.
>

Yes, I have heard all about the Great Depression dang near every day of my life. My father remembers when it hit. His father was one of the lucky ones - he got to keep his seasonal job at the local cotton gin, but he DID get a 75% pay cut $5/day pre-depression to $1.25/day). He spent the rest of the year being a dirt-farmer (cotton, tomatos, and sorghum). And I do not know how my Mother's parents fed and clothed 8 children on her Dad's salary (between $0.75 and $1.00/day as a store clerk) and what they could get sharecropping. Yes, it was a VERY terrible time. However, back then, most people did not look to Govt. to solve their problems, and many endured starvation rather than go 'on the dole'. Oh, and for the record, it was not FDR's socialist 'New Deal' that brought us out of the Great Depression, it was the arms buildup that preceeded our entry into WWII. My source? The people that were *there*.

> Social Security was created as insurance, a pool of people paying in for the
> express purpose of having guaranteed benefits in old age/ or disability. It's
> not a socialist plot to have the workers support the lazy... what a crock.
> Somebody has fed someone a steady diet of misinformation founded in prejudice.
>

Ok, if SS is not 'welfare/social program' but instead is an 'insurance policy', then this just strengthens the case for privitization. After all, insurance does a nice job and it is in the private sector with only minimal govt. regulation.

It seems to me that the jist of your rhetoric thus far in this thread has been a condemnation of the possibility of privitization of a part of SS. Just what is so wrong with moving some (or all) of SS into the private sector? Do you honestly believe that the American Public is so tree-stump-stupid that they cannot be allowed to take personal responsibility for a part of *THEIR OWN* 'Social Security Retirement' and that only the enlightened wisdom of politicians and bureaucrats in Washington is up to the task? Or, are you against privitization of part of SS because (due to reduced tax income) the above-mentioned politicans and bureaucrats will lose part of their ability to 'Socially Engineer' the American Public into doing exactly what they, the powers-that-be, wish? Or is it some other reason? Please, enlighten me as to the exact reason(s) YOU (and not some script or playbook you are likely quoting from) believe privitization to be wrong and total government control of the jacked-up-ponzi-scheme-writ-large that is Social Security is correct?

You also claim that SS is not 'socialist'.

http://www.investorwords.com/4613/socialism.html

Socialism: Economic system which is based on cooperation rather than competition and which utilizes centralized planning and distribution.

Ok, 'centralized planning and distribution'... If SS does not fit that definition, I do not know what would...

And prejudice... Where did THAT word enter into a discussion of Social Security? Typical left-wing tactics. Play the 'prejudice/discrimination/class warfare' card when they get behind on the rhetoric of the debate.
>
> Any system will be gamed by a small percentage of people, but to try to lay
> off or compound prejudice by generalizing in that manner is just so much
> childish bias, it's not grounded in supportable fact.
>

Childish bias? I am not the one claiming that something is wrong with the American Public. You are, by implying they are somehow or another unable to take personal responsibility for their own actions and affairs. I believe that the American Public *IS* able to handle its own affairs, without 'assistance' from the 'enlightened elites' in Washington, DC. that somehow have the notion that they know better how to spend/invest my money than I do.

In a previous post in this thread, you typed:

> Now, kong,
>
> The trust fund is nontradable gov. bonds, and only accounts for about a third
> of the bonds we have out there, we aren't gooing to default on those bonds.

That is precisely what I said. The trust fund assets are nothing more than a pile of IOUs. It is one thing when the Govt. sells a bond to a private citizen or a corporation. That citizen or corporation gives the Govt. money, and the Govt. gives in return a promise to repay, with interest, at a later date. When it comes time to redeem said bond (with interest), the Govt. has 3 sources of money. It can either use tax revenue, revenue from selling additional bonds, or it can just "print" it (now they don't just run the printing presses at the mint a while longer, but the process is a bit involved and outside the scope of this discussion). "Printing" the money is out, because to do this on a large(er) scale would almost certainly destabilize our economy. So, basically, that leaves the first two options.

However, for the government to 'sell itself' bonds is accounting trickery. They have taken money out of the trust fund as it comes in (putting it into general revenue to reduce the budget 'deficit'), and replaced it with a promise to repay (IOU) at interest. Where will the Govt. get the money to repay itself when the time comes to start cashing them out to pay benefits? Again, taxes or more bonds. A large-scale issuance of additional bonds would not really be a good thing due to supply and demand issues. This leaves additional tax revenue. However, increased taxation will put a drag on the economy, so we are kinda screwed any way you look at it... Unless either the Congress curtails other social program spending, or there is some other vast program whose 'trust fund' can be raided.

> They are every bit as redeemable as cash, we still sell billions of those

Yes, but you still NEED the cash to redeem them with, unless you just send the involved bonds directly to the people getting benefits, and let THEM worry about cashing them out. But then, if you did that, why not let the public buy the bonds directly, essentially privitizing the system. From there, it is but a short step to allow the public to purchase OTHER securties as well with their 'social security tax dollars'. Why not?

> bonds monthly. To say that they 'aren't there' is a word game. It's the same
> as saying there is no money, because it's all just printed up. It's specious,
> it's a scare tactic and both sides use scare tactics for their own aims. It
> makes no difference in the veracity of the value and redeemability of those
> bonds, when either political party repeats a specious phrase.

Yeah.. Uhh huh... Sure... YOU haven't repeted any specious phrases in this thread?

> (I'll refrain
> from asking you what you know of partisan politics here and just assume you
> let your thoughts run away from you for a second there)

I understand partisan politics better than you think (or are willing to admit in a public forum). It is just that *my* brand of 'partisan' politics includes neither the blue Ds, nor the red Rs... There is precious little difference in the domestic (or foreign, for that matter) agendas of the two major parties. Both support (demostrated by their actions, not their rhetoric) ever-increasing govt. intrusion in our lives, and our bank accounts. Bah-humbug! to them both. Its time for something NEW (or old, from another point of view) in US politics.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Here we go... (not intimidated by the length of this post at all)

As you have taken the time to find out, the age thing does not account for all the credit given to it in most arguments. When you weight the difference in those numbers back into equation as a whole, we're back to talking about small parts of percentages. And since the demographics will change by a much larger factor in just a very few decades, it's not a big deal, certainly not what could be called a deal breaker or even something that's particularly germaine to the issue of 'crisis'.

Progressive, regressive arguments are also not something that would be a deal breaker.
Let;s consider instead maybe a percentage of disposable income to fairly account for wage disparity.... you must be in favor of that, since you are proposing 'fairness'.
I'm not opposed to looking at adjustments to level the field as far as tax burdens go, but like most folks, if that's to be an area of discussion we should not limit it to payroll tax and the benefits derived from them. (As to the baseball analogy, those aren't undesignated seating arrangements, ...are they? So if there's to be parity, let's all pay the same and the luxury box is first come first served.....)

The crash and depression demonstrated that without insurance, private investments and pensions were unable to be depended on.... hence the creation of a program to guard against the scenerio causing the kind of grief that was just experienced.

For the record...... whatever else you may try to read into what FDR did or didn't do has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

So your point about socialism is what? You propose banning any collective risk taking? Well dismantle the stock exchange and corporate investing.... what are you thinking? or what point were you making?

It is childish to say that what a small percentage of grifters may do, is germaine to the idea that that is a reason to dismantle a system that benefits the commons. That commons is what we all come together to do collectively what we are not able to do singly. It would be as childish as for me to say you are advocating anarchy, everybody for themselves, survival of the fittest and screw any unfortunates amongst us. Or did you say that?

Two things about your bonds and taxes argument jump right out. Bonds and defecit financing do not create or deny the existence of Social Security. Deficit financing is a seperate policy that I agree needs some sanity restored to rescue it from those who think deficits don't matter and we can just inflate our way out of any trouble. The world may very well decide our falling dollar is not the currency to base their economies on and then we're in big trouble. But all that is not something that should drive decisions about just a part of our finances. Are you proposing no more defense spending until we can pay for it?

Also, you make some broad assertions about economic theory that practice does not always support. Macro/Micro Economics, Monetary Policy, and "Productivity are an extremely complex are of study that we have not the time or the space to conclude too many truism here in these small confines. But..... Productivity is not linked to tax revenue rates in the manner you describe, but rather it is often when revenue is sometimes being raised at it's highest rates that productivity has increased over other cycles.

The other or last point about investing the bonds yourself I'm not clear what it is you are saying for sure, but, yes, and there's nothing to stop you now, you can do that now, if you wait for your 'bond to mature', get paid your premium, you can invest it any way you want. If you pull your premium from the pool, just like any insurance policy, you will be causing an effect to ripple through the pool and have to be assessed a penalty.


And finally... Nope, I don't think I'm being specious at all. And as to partisan politics, I didn't bring that up as a reason to think nothing right could be accomplished.

But I will now make a partisan observation,

brainsmasher,

.....a Repugnant Congressman said recently that maybe since women lived a little longer, they should cut their benefits to reflect that.

later, kong.

---

> brainsmasher,
>
> .....a Repugnant Congressman said recently that maybe since women lived a
> little longer, they should cut their benefits to reflect that.
>
> later, kong.


Wouldn't hurt my feeling if they cut all welfare 100%. Not one single person I associate with would be affected, other than having our income tax reduced which would relate to more money for the WORKING man.

If you surround yourself with low-life's and leeches, then you probably won't do much better yourself. Cut out the free food and these lazy MFer's will be scrambling for a work!!

BTW, you want to know how folks fed themselves during the depression. What they couldn't farm or hunt, they simple picked up off the ground. Bugs, grass, dirt, etc.

You ask Tyrone if he prefers working for his meals or being given Food Stamps simply because he doesn't want to work. Then you might understand the problems associated with ALL Social Aid programs.

Then again, you could be a typical liberal who doesn't feel the working man deserves to spend his own money as he or she sees fit.

I mean I took out $100 *extra* per month in insurance yesterday . At 33 I'm preparing for the possibility of Cancer, Heart Attack, Accidents, and death because it's cheaper to do it now. The older I get, the greater the risk becomes, and the higher the premiums will become.

It's called preparing for my future so that I am not a burden to my family or society

.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

the reference was to social security, not welfare

not sure where the welfare discussion fits here

good for you that you want to invest in your future,

interesting to note that you bought insurance instead of buying into equity risk that may or may not provide any payout at all when you need it.

as far as not wanting to be a burden, atta boy.... would that everyone could guarantee they didn't become a burden.

That's one of the reasons Social Security was formed.

So that those, through no fault of their own, would not be a burden on their families or society.

---

> That's one of the reasons Social Security was formed.
>
> So that those, through no fault of their own, would not be a burden on their
> families or society.
>

I agree since I am one of those who paid into the system for 30ys!
It's Called Social Secrity Insurance, If not for that and disability
insurance I would be in deep doo doo! (no offence Dogs)

Even with both I am still livin hard... But I survive...

---

> the reference was to social security, not welfare
>
> not sure where the welfare discussion fits here

Social Security is welfare for old people.

> good for you that you want to invest in your future,
>
> interesting to note that you bought insurance instead of buying into equity
> risk that may or may not provide any payout at all when you need it.

It's supplemental insurance (Aflac). It does pay directly to me. My work insurance pays the medical bills.

> as far as not wanting to be a burden, atta boy.... would that everyone could
> guarantee they didn't become a burden.
>
> That's one of the reasons Social Security was formed.
>
> So that those, through no fault of their own, would not be a burden on their
> families or society.

LAF.....what a joke, if they are not a burden on society, then exactly who do you think is being taxed for those *free* checks?

You sound like my X-buddy who went on Food Stamps. He just couldn't understand why I was so upset......he too had the opinion that it wasn't costing me money, until I asked him who he thought paid for those Food Stamps if it wasn't the working man. so he got a job.......at a convience store. Excluding the lottery and premature death, he's going to be on old people welfare,and THAT'S how it happens to the majority of folks who find themselves government dependent. Lazy rather than uncontrollable circumstances.

.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

I understand a little bit more of your misconceptions now,

you don't know what payroll taxes mean.

a little remedial education is my suggestion, perhaps it's not too late for you to discover that some of you 'beliefs' are unfounded.

---

What a load of words! The U.S. social security program is not 'welfare', it is an enforced (money taken out of your paycheck before you get it with no way of avoiding it) savings account. I, as a worker, am paying for my parent's social security checks, just as they paid for theirs. THose who retired at the beginning of the program paid no SS tax. The generation then working when I retire will be funding my SS checks. Simple.
Bonds as IOUs? In comparison to what? Currency? Cash (dollar/pound/euro/etc) have no intrinsic worth. Allegedly they are based on a nation's Gross National Product. As the GNP changes, the values of different currencies change in relation to each other. A $10,000 treasury bond has the same value (on maturity) as $10,000 in cash. Just a place marker is all that it is. And again, intrinsic value of $10,000? I would imagine that it could be used for stuffing in your home's walls as insulation or for wiping. Its just a symbol. One dollar equals one chicken equals one loaf of bread. its easier to carry around a twenty dollar bill than a couple of loaves and a dozen chickens....
Privatization? OHMYGODNO!!!!!!! In the states we have a retirement program called the "401-K". You give them X amount of dollars (pre-tax) and they invest it as you wish (minus their fees of course). You can have them put it into treasury bonds (safe as a regular bank account), stocks/mutual funds. And the stocks/mutual funds are a crapshoot. If your stocks go up, you make money (less the afore mentioned fees). If your stocks go down, you lose money, plus the fees. I know a few people who went from having around $40,000 in their 401-Ks to less than a $1,000 when the stockmarket dumped last time, all in a couple of months. For the longest time the stockmarket was under 2,000 points, now its over 10,000. One of the major causes (as I see it but I may be talking out of my butt) was a sudden influx of money that had to be invested somewhere causing supply and demand type stock prices to go up..guess where that money came from? Yup, 401-K program. And now they want to do it some more? Only people who will make money are the brokers, stock owners, companies, etc...rest of us will be standing out in the cold trying to figure out what happened....
The more you earn (up to 90K as noted) the more you pay. Right now with our people prefering to buy goods made overseas (China to be specific) US manufacturing is diying (sp). Less manufacturing equals less jobs equals less taxes equals less money available to be payed out equals more people needing help. Its called the "Global Economy". Meaning the rich bastitches can make more money out of this country while paying less to the people. No reason to pay a US company $12.00 for a shirt that they can sell for $18.00 when they can buy an equivalent shirt from China for $3.00, sell it for $15.00 and still tell everyone how nice they are to give them a three dollar savings. And on this, don't get me wrong, I mean EVERY country's citizens have a responsibilty to their OWN country to buy their OWN country's goods before they go somewhere else to save a kopec. I "Buy AMerican", and if I was French it would be "Buy French" or whatever country I am a citizen of. Wise up people. I would like to own a Saab but I buy Fords...enough of this drivel and pedagoguery (g)..p

---