3 Statistics About Social Security That Are Frightening

[JoeTheEconomist]

Did you ever wonder why when an income tax cut comes up, the 1st thing you hear about is either S.S. or Medicare, and NOT welfare, foreign aid, billions being lost through fraud, or most any other federal program? (full disclosure--------->entitlements are much larger % today of the federal budget, than any of these others, although together, they do make a significant outlay in the budget)

ANSWER---------> (using SS) Because it affects EVERYONE, thus it SCARES everyone! It will allow them to manipulate you to vote against your best interests, because you are afraid of the fall out to you personally!

I wouldn't disagree with you. The left uses these programs as a horse-whip for its audience. It is fear-mongering for political purposes.

The reality is that Social Security is off-budget. Absent Congress reducing subsidies that go to the system, EITC as well, we can cut benefits to zero and the budget deficit is unchanged. Payroll taxes go to the Trust Fund, which lends the money to Congress, creating the exact same amount of debt. When you hear that Social Security adds to the debt, they are talking about "Debt Held By The Public" - which is a nearly useless statistic that is designed purely for political purposes.

Yes the government has a financing problem. Yes Social Security has a financing problem. But they are not the same nor can they be combined.

This is a longer explanation that ran in the KS Star :

Why Social Security cuts won’t help decrease the debt

An interesting read. I recommend it to everyone, and thnx!

It is only interesting because the question is the right one to ask. I still have yet to get to the others...

It is amazing Joe, how our funding mechanisms are convoluted. I am certain that is no mistake. Past administrations, present administration, future administrations, as long as possible, will try and hide whatever they can from us.

In our world, 2 + 2 = 4. Not in theirs, lol.

Without transparency, we normal people have no idea what to do/not to do, as far as government finances anymore.

And then you have bean counters who try and figure it to the best of their ability, and they come up with different answers, so convoluted is the system. And these honest fact finders are actually trying to go under the 2 + 2 = 4 rule.

Personally, I believe you are pretty close to the truth as far as fiscally. But the solutions? I think a mega computer would have to do it for us, and that is after we programmed the damn thing to understand that our government tries to contradict itself so as it always has an out. In my humble opinion-------->the damn thing would probably blow up from confusion-)

Unfortunately you put all of this in one comment so I can only give you 1 thumbs up

 

[gipper]

Typically, we hear a lot of drama and get a lot of hand-wringing over the possibility of benefit cuts 16 years in the future. Comically enough most of the articles are talking about a fairly benign impact.

Here are three stats to worry about :

The Social Security Shortfall Is Growing Three Times Faster Than the US Economy.

In other words, the hole in the program’s finances is growing at three times the rate of our ability to fill it.

People Turning 70 Today expect to Be Alive When Benefits are Reduced

The problem of Social Security hasn't been about those 40 and younger in decades. Here is the SSA's life expectancy calcuator : Calculators: Life Expectancy

In 2016, The Program Lost More Money Than It Collected

We could have reduced benefits to zero for the entire year of 2016, and the program would have finished the year in worse shape than it started. "Loss" here is looking at the $ value of promises that we believe will go unfulfilled.

If you want the details, here is my article, but the stats are pretty simple.

No Way Around Sorry Shape Social Security Is In

Just stop spending (really wasting) TRILLIONS on the war machine and empire building.

Problem fixed.

Thanks for your thoughts, but you can cut the government's spending to zero and Social Security is unaffected. It still goes bust at the same time.

Wrong. Just stop war spending and transfer those trillions to SS.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Typically, we hear a lot of drama and get a lot of hand-wringing over the possibility of benefit cuts 16 years in the future. Comically enough most of the articles are talking about a fairly benign impact.

Here are three stats to worry about :

The Social Security Shortfall Is Growing Three Times Faster Than the US Economy.

In other words, the hole in the program’s finances is growing at three times the rate of our ability to fill it.

People Turning 70 Today expect to Be Alive When Benefits are Reduced

The problem of Social Security hasn't been about those 40 and younger in decades. Here is the SSA's life expectancy calcuator : Calculators: Life Expectancy

In 2016, The Program Lost More Money Than It Collected

We could have reduced benefits to zero for the entire year of 2016, and the program would have finished the year in worse shape than it started. "Loss" here is looking at the $ value of promises that we believe will go unfulfilled.

If you want the details, here is my article, but the stats are pretty simple.

No Way Around Sorry Shape Social Security Is In

Just stop spending (really wasting) TRILLIONS on the war machine and empire building.

Problem fixed.

Thanks for your thoughts, but you can cut the government's spending to zero and Social Security is unaffected. It still goes bust at the same time.

Wrong. Just stop war spending and transfer those trillions to SS.

Now you have a new thought that is equally misguided. You want to get a new channel of revenue one that could be used to pay down the staggering debt that we have run up. You want to bail-out SS, and others will want to pay down the debt. Others will want to use the savings to pay for restructuring student loans. Others will have other priorities. You can't sensibly make the needs of the elderly just a political priority. Or it is only a matter of time until other priorities win out.

The program as intended was one where workers pay for their benefits. Then it was one where benefits are financed from parents to children. When you use GF subsidies to pay off these obligations, it is the children of children. Just be aware that when those people get the right to vote don't be surprised when they say no.

 

[gipper]

Typically, we hear a lot of drama and get a lot of hand-wringing over the possibility of benefit cuts 16 years in the future. Comically enough most of the articles are talking about a fairly benign impact.

Here are three stats to worry about :

The Social Security Shortfall Is Growing Three Times Faster Than the US Economy.

In other words, the hole in the program’s finances is growing at three times the rate of our ability to fill it.

People Turning 70 Today expect to Be Alive When Benefits are Reduced

The problem of Social Security hasn't been about those 40 and younger in decades. Here is the SSA's life expectancy calcuator : Calculators: Life Expectancy

In 2016, The Program Lost More Money Than It Collected

We could have reduced benefits to zero for the entire year of 2016, and the program would have finished the year in worse shape than it started. "Loss" here is looking at the $ value of promises that we believe will go unfulfilled.

If you want the details, here is my article, but the stats are pretty simple.

No Way Around Sorry Shape Social Security Is In

Just stop spending (really wasting) TRILLIONS on the war machine and empire building.

Problem fixed.

Thanks for your thoughts, but you can cut the government's spending to zero and Social Security is unaffected. It still goes bust at the same time.

Wrong. Just stop war spending and transfer those trillions to SS.

Now you have a new thought that is equally misguided. You want to get a new channel of revenue one that could be used to pay down the staggering debt that we have run up. You want to bail-out SS, and others will want to pay down the debt. Others will want to use the savings to pay for restructuring student loans. Others will have other priorities. You can't sensibly make the needs of the elderly just a political priority. Or it is only a matter of time until other priorities win out.

The program as intended was one where workers pay for their benefits. Then it was one where benefits are financed from parents to children. When you use GF subsidies to pay off these obligations, it is the children of children. Just be aware that when those people get the right to vote don't be surprised when they say no.

Not really. The criminal politicians stole from the SS fund, why not pay it back?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Typically, we hear a lot of drama and get a lot of hand-wringing over the possibility of benefit cuts 16 years in the future. Comically enough most of the articles are talking about a fairly benign impact.

Here are three stats to worry about :

The Social Security Shortfall Is Growing Three Times Faster Than the US Economy.

In other words, the hole in the program’s finances is growing at three times the rate of our ability to fill it.

People Turning 70 Today expect to Be Alive When Benefits are Reduced

The problem of Social Security hasn't been about those 40 and younger in decades. Here is the SSA's life expectancy calcuator : Calculators: Life Expectancy

In 2016, The Program Lost More Money Than It Collected

We could have reduced benefits to zero for the entire year of 2016, and the program would have finished the year in worse shape than it started. "Loss" here is looking at the $ value of promises that we believe will go unfulfilled.

If you want the details, here is my article, but the stats are pretty simple.

No Way Around Sorry Shape Social Security Is In

Just stop spending (really wasting) TRILLIONS on the war machine and empire building.

Problem fixed.

Thanks for your thoughts, but you can cut the government's spending to zero and Social Security is unaffected. It still goes bust at the same time.

Wrong. Just stop war spending and transfer those trillions to SS.

Now you have a new thought that is equally misguided. You want to get a new channel of revenue one that could be used to pay down the staggering debt that we have run up. You want to bail-out SS, and others will want to pay down the debt. Others will want to use the savings to pay for restructuring student loans. Others will have other priorities. You can't sensibly make the needs of the elderly just a political priority. Or it is only a matter of time until other priorities win out.

The program as intended was one where workers pay for their benefits. Then it was one where benefits are financed from parents to children. When you use GF subsidies to pay off these obligations, it is the children of children. Just be aware that when those people get the right to vote don't be surprised when they say no.

Not really. The criminal politicians stole from the SS fund, why not pay it back?

I have addressed this 3 times. On a simple level, every projection for the program regardless of source assumes that every penny will be repaid with interest. Why? because it is lunacy to consider any alternative. No serious analysis treats the theft as plausible. Why? There is not anything to steal. The Social Security Trustees are not a biased source. Today the Trust Fund is around $2.9 trillion - of which $2 trillion is interest and another $650 billion is general fund subsidies TO the system. This isn't where they are taking money from the program. Congress is putting it in.

This program is where it is because voters aren't paying attention. We have cliches, like the nonsense that stop spending money on war and everything is fine. Solutions in the fewest words possible. These people present a complete impasse on reasoned discussion.

The only way that you are suggesting a serious thoughtful idea is if the SSA is a front for the largest conspiracy in the history of man. It would dwarf the conspiracy required to fake the lunar landing. Just to make sure you understand your contribution. You believe that Obama covered for Bush, who covered for Clinton, who covered for GWB Sr. To me that is a little implausible to swallow.

 

[beagle9]

So should the people be able to sue the government for stealing their money for decades now ? The fund should have been solvent, and it should have been paid out to it's rightful participant's, and what about those who passed and never drawed a dime of it or never drawed over two years before death (where'd that money go) ?

I am curious. On what basis do you believe that the program "should have been solvent".

I can explain the latter question, but it pretty much deals with the fact that the program has never been actuarially sound. That isn't my opinion. It is straight from the Congressional testimony of A.J. Altmeyer, who was the first person to run what we call the Social Security administration.

OK Joe, you are the economist, and have all the facts and figures, and I am not being sarcastic, I am actually trying to get an answer for these people, up to, and including myself.

Let us all forget the IOU's, and everything else for a second, and ask pertinent, economic questions about a few things, including how much, and where, the blame lies; specifically in percentages, so we can come to a conclusion on how much we should help fund, and how much we demand our politicians come up with an answer by defunding other programs to transfer to SS, and Medicare!

QUESTIONS, and COMMENTS------------->

1. S.S. and Medicare, are 2 separate entities. While they are BOTH important to all of us, we need to separate the discussion on them.

2. We know, that S.S. is a pay as you go system. In essence, we pay in today for those that are collecting today, and expect those of tomorrow, pay in for us to collect.

3. Now the hard questions------> Was there EVER a time that S.S. took in more revenue then its outlays?

a. If so, how many years did that surplus last?
b. If those years of surplus were put into even government bonds at that time, how much would the fund have grown; in essence meaning........how far in arrears would the fund be today as opposed to its current situation?

I would like to explain something to people reading my post, and in no way am I trying to detract from the factual points that economist Joe is trying to make.

Did you ever wonder why when an income tax cut comes up, the 1st thing you hear about is either S.S. or Medicare, and NOT welfare, foreign aid, billions being lost through fraud, or most any other federal program? (full disclosure--------->entitlements are much larger % today of the federal budget, than any of these others, although together, they do make a significant outlay in the budget)

ANSWER---------> (using SS) Because it affects EVERYONE, thus it SCARES everyone! It will allow them to manipulate you to vote against your best interests, because you are afraid of the fall out to you personally!

Now what if I told you that-----> foreign aid was causing a 30 billion dollar deficit per year? (just creating numbers, not actual) What if I said------>if we cut taxes, the deficit for that program would rise, become insolvent, and we might have to shrink funding? What would you say? How about if it was welfare programs that incessantly over lap?

See my point, lol. Now you know why they point directly at what affects you, although the federal governments payments actually derive from the general fund, where ALL these programs reside.

Doubt me?

Then consider this--------------> What was our deficit last year, and our projected deficit this year? Pick either one! Now I am guessing, so maybe Joe will prove me wrong, but-------> what was the deficit last year for the S.S. fund? What is the projected deficit next year, for the S.S. fund?

So now, if the Federal governments deficit was HIGHER than the deficit for the S.S. fund, then why are the non-tax cut people just focused on that particular program? Shouldn't we be focused on ALL programs causing deficit? I mean, these other programs are NOT ENTITLEMENTS, so we could just lop them off, yes!

So while I agree Joe is accurate, we are addressing this particular issue because Washington feels by shaking you up, you will be more inclined to allow a RAISE to fund them in taxes, and stop concentrating on cutting their PET programs that are NOT entitlements; transferring the money to these entitlements, to help save them. In essence, it is the 3 card Monty trick. Where is the penny under the shell, and you never find it!

Now then, in fairness, I agree with Joe, something has to be done. But, don't allow them to raise your taxes to fund them, WITHOUT cutting programs to help pay for them. Say that, and watch Washington scream, and the whole narrative change. Always remember------->it is EASY PEEZY for someone to go to Washington and create give aways to people, or entities. A real legislature, has to sometimes decide what to cut! I am not sure we have any of those today in Washington, and if we don't, it is up to you in 2018 to make it happen!

. Exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[Norman]

Typically, we hear a lot of drama and get a lot of hand-wringing over the possibility of benefit cuts 16 years in the future. Comically enough most of the articles are talking about a fairly benign impact.

Here are three stats to worry about :

The Social Security Shortfall Is Growing Three Times Faster Than the US Economy.

In other words, the hole in the program’s finances is growing at three times the rate of our ability to fill it.

People Turning 70 Today expect to Be Alive When Benefits are Reduced

The problem of Social Security hasn't been about those 40 and younger in decades. Here is the SSA's life expectancy calcuator : Calculators: Life Expectancy

In 2016, The Program Lost More Money Than It Collected

We could have reduced benefits to zero for the entire year of 2016, and the program would have finished the year in worse shape than it started. "Loss" here is looking at the $ value of promises that we believe will go unfulfilled.

If you want the details, here is my article, but the stats are pretty simple.

No Way Around Sorry Shape Social Security Is In

If you want to dumbed down version with nonetheless all the information anyone should need, here it is:

Social security is the worst government program conceived and one of the worst/ most evil ideas of the 20th century.

 

[initforme]

Social security has helped tens if not hundreds of millions...one of the best things this nation has done. Considering wages are quickly sliding behind prices it's a miracle anyone is able to retire.

 

[beagle9]

When more retire with higher benefits and less than interest amounts grow it vs paying in, it begins to collapse. The govt has never been good with others money.
If we were to have an option to invest 25% of what we pay in, into a 401k, we would have much more to retire on, and what is left can be passed on to our families. The rate of return as it sits now is only 1.23%.

Things are considerably worse that you are proposing in two ways.

First, if you divert 25% of your payroll taxes to a "401K" type of account. The existing system crashes much faster, and with much larger cuts.

Second, Where did you get the 1.23% from? Likely that is a backward looking ROI from the SSA on the program's return. The problem is that we are going through benefit reductions today that were enacted 40 years ago. The ROI from today isn't good going forward. Some of this is personal opinion that can be substantiated with SSA reports. A typical worker now loses money on the program. That is a much longer discussion though.

Point 2 is a serious problem because if we raise taxes, the return only gets worse. All you are doing is paying today's seniors by putting future seniors into more poverty. It is a classic kick-the-can idea.

. There is a way to raise revenue's for the fund, and turn it into the program it was supposed to be, but why isn't there any great ideas being jumped on when they materialize ? Is it because on the one hand we have those who are the ones that played the game right, and are rightfully dependent on the program being run right, now being disrespected by those who are corrupt in our government ??

Does the government know who it's dealing with, and therefore it has treated this program in the ways that it wanted to all because of ??

 

[beagle9]

Typically, we hear a lot of drama and get a lot of hand-wringing over the possibility of benefit cuts 16 years in the future. Comically enough most of the articles are talking about a fairly benign impact.

Here are three stats to worry about :

The Social Security Shortfall Is Growing Three Times Faster Than the US Economy.

In other words, the hole in the program’s finances is growing at three times the rate of our ability to fill it.

People Turning 70 Today expect to Be Alive When Benefits are Reduced

The problem of Social Security hasn't been about those 40 and younger in decades. Here is the SSA's life expectancy calcuator : Calculators: Life Expectancy

In 2016, The Program Lost More Money Than It Collected

We could have reduced benefits to zero for the entire year of 2016, and the program would have finished the year in worse shape than it started. "Loss" here is looking at the $ value of promises that we believe will go unfulfilled.

If you want the details, here is my article, but the stats are pretty simple.

No Way Around Sorry Shape Social Security Is In

Just stop spending (really wasting) TRILLIONS on the war machine and empire building.

Problem fixed.

Thanks for your thoughts, but you can cut the government's spending to zero and Social Security is unaffected. It still goes bust at the same time.

Wrong. Just stop war spending and transfer those trillions to SS.

. Why we are still in Afghanistan just boggles the mind really.

 

[Rustic]

Typically, we hear a lot of drama and get a lot of hand-wringing over the possibility of benefit cuts 16 years in the future. Comically enough most of the articles are talking about a fairly benign impact.

Here are three stats to worry about :

The Social Security Shortfall Is Growing Three Times Faster Than the US Economy.

In other words, the hole in the program’s finances is growing at three times the rate of our ability to fill it.

People Turning 70 Today expect to Be Alive When Benefits are Reduced

The problem of Social Security hasn't been about those 40 and younger in decades. Here is the SSA's life expectancy calcuator : Calculators: Life Expectancy

In 2016, The Program Lost More Money Than It Collected

We could have reduced benefits to zero for the entire year of 2016, and the program would have finished the year in worse shape than it started. "Loss" here is looking at the $ value of promises that we believe will go unfulfilled.

If you want the details, here is my article, but the stats are pretty simple.

No Way Around Sorry Shape Social Security Is In

Of course, all socialist entitlement programs are a failure. Sooner or later

 

[Rustic]

Social Security is a lost cause, less people are putting less in, more people are taking more out. How can that be a good thing? Why not move on to bigger and better things?

 

[initforme]

Explain bigger and better...when wages are going to really stagnate.

 

[Norman]

Explain bigger and better...when wages are going to really stagnate.

I think he meant something where more than 0 dollars is saved to actually fund the god damn thing. Something where slavery for the children is not used as the ways of funding it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Social security has helped tens if not hundreds of millions...one of the best things this nation has done. Considering wages are quickly sliding behind prices it's a miracle anyone is able to retire.

Considering wages are quickly sliding behind prices

Baloney.

 

[Tax Man]

So should the people be able to sue the government for stealing their money for decades now ? The fund should have been solvent, and it should have been paid out to it's rightful participant's, and what about those who passed and never drawed a dime of it or never drawed over two years before death (where'd that money go) ?

Why was it or is it still run as a socialist program that forces all regardless of job titles to have to await the same time in order to draw on it ? Is this in hopes that those who have been worked to death will fall out before their draw date arrives ?? Otherwise is the thing set up in a way that is designed specifically to let those who pass early, then pay for the ones who survive, and the excess is shaved off to go for other bullcrap that isn't related to the program ??

I just can't figure out how we have a retirement program for workers who pay into that program, and it is run by the government, yet it steady is failing ?? So is it evidence that the government is corrupt, and stealing people's money through a slush fund called the social security retirement fund ?

How is it the government can declare emergencies here or over seas, and all these millions or billions just magically appear ?? I'm not to schooled on the subject, but just a worker who has worked all my life paying in, yet to constantly hear threats of the program failing, going bust or the age being extended well beyond people's years to draw on it because they are predicted to most likely die first. What kind of corruption is this bullcrap ?

Sadly it was rethuglians who started the demise of the program. Kinda like the newly passed tax "cuts" by congress. Never trust a republican with your money or security.

 

[gipper]

Typically, we hear a lot of drama and get a lot of hand-wringing over the possibility of benefit cuts 16 years in the future. Comically enough most of the articles are talking about a fairly benign impact.

Here are three stats to worry about :

The Social Security Shortfall Is Growing Three Times Faster Than the US Economy.

In other words, the hole in the program’s finances is growing at three times the rate of our ability to fill it.

People Turning 70 Today expect to Be Alive When Benefits are Reduced

The problem of Social Security hasn't been about those 40 and younger in decades. Here is the SSA's life expectancy calcuator : Calculators: Life Expectancy

In 2016, The Program Lost More Money Than It Collected

We could have reduced benefits to zero for the entire year of 2016, and the program would have finished the year in worse shape than it started. "Loss" here is looking at the $ value of promises that we believe will go unfulfilled.

If you want the details, here is my article, but the stats are pretty simple.

No Way Around Sorry Shape Social Security Is In

Just stop spending (really wasting) TRILLIONS on the war machine and empire building.

Problem fixed.

Thanks for your thoughts, but you can cut the government's spending to zero and Social Security is unaffected. It still goes bust at the same time.

Wrong. Just stop war spending and transfer those trillions to SS.

. Why we are still in Afghanistan just boggles the mind really.

Agreed but it sure does benefit the war profiteers.

 

[gipper]

Typically, we hear a lot of drama and get a lot of hand-wringing over the possibility of benefit cuts 16 years in the future. Comically enough most of the articles are talking about a fairly benign impact.

Here are three stats to worry about :

The Social Security Shortfall Is Growing Three Times Faster Than the US Economy.

In other words, the hole in the program’s finances is growing at three times the rate of our ability to fill it.

People Turning 70 Today expect to Be Alive When Benefits are Reduced

The problem of Social Security hasn't been about those 40 and younger in decades. Here is the SSA's life expectancy calcuator : Calculators: Life Expectancy

In 2016, The Program Lost More Money Than It Collected

We could have reduced benefits to zero for the entire year of 2016, and the program would have finished the year in worse shape than it started. "Loss" here is looking at the $ value of promises that we believe will go unfulfilled.

If you want the details, here is my article, but the stats are pretty simple.

No Way Around Sorry Shape Social Security Is In

If you want to dumbed down version with nonetheless all the information anyone should need, here it is:

Social security is the worst government program conceived and one of the worst/ most evil ideas of the 20th century.

In a nation where the extreme wealthy are protected and receive enormous benefits from government,helping the middle class doesn’t seem so unjust.

 

[Norman]

Typically, we hear a lot of drama and get a lot of hand-wringing over the possibility of benefit cuts 16 years in the future. Comically enough most of the articles are talking about a fairly benign impact.

Here are three stats to worry about :

The Social Security Shortfall Is Growing Three Times Faster Than the US Economy.

In other words, the hole in the program’s finances is growing at three times the rate of our ability to fill it.

People Turning 70 Today expect to Be Alive When Benefits are Reduced

The problem of Social Security hasn't been about those 40 and younger in decades. Here is the SSA's life expectancy calcuator : Calculators: Life Expectancy

In 2016, The Program Lost More Money Than It Collected

We could have reduced benefits to zero for the entire year of 2016, and the program would have finished the year in worse shape than it started. "Loss" here is looking at the $ value of promises that we believe will go unfulfilled.

If you want the details, here is my article, but the stats are pretty simple.

No Way Around Sorry Shape Social Security Is In

If you want to dumbed down version with nonetheless all the information anyone should need, here it is:

Social security is the worst government program conceived and one of the worst/ most evil ideas of the 20th century.

In a nation where the extreme wealthy are protected and receive enormous benefits from government,helping the middle class doesn’t seem so unjust.

How is enslaving the children "helping" them?

Thanks for the help bro, but it isn't appreciated! I bet that this guy is one of those folks who can't help even himself, yet talks about how others should be helped.

Also the extremely wealthy mostly pay taxes and do not get as much in return, unless talking about the likes of Hillary Clinton who has figured out ways to game the tax-payer money. Social security would be one of her tools.

 

[gipper]

Typically, we hear a lot of drama and get a lot of hand-wringing over the possibility of benefit cuts 16 years in the future. Comically enough most of the articles are talking about a fairly benign impact.

Here are three stats to worry about :

The Social Security Shortfall Is Growing Three Times Faster Than the US Economy.

In other words, the hole in the program’s finances is growing at three times the rate of our ability to fill it.

People Turning 70 Today expect to Be Alive When Benefits are Reduced

The problem of Social Security hasn't been about those 40 and younger in decades. Here is the SSA's life expectancy calcuator : Calculators: Life Expectancy

In 2016, The Program Lost More Money Than It Collected

We could have reduced benefits to zero for the entire year of 2016, and the program would have finished the year in worse shape than it started. "Loss" here is looking at the $ value of promises that we believe will go unfulfilled.

If you want the details, here is my article, but the stats are pretty simple.

No Way Around Sorry Shape Social Security Is In

If you want to dumbed down version with nonetheless all the information anyone should need, here it is:

Social security is the worst government program conceived and one of the worst/ most evil ideas of the 20th century.

In a nation where the extreme wealthy are protected and receive enormous benefits from government,helping the middle class doesn’t seem so unjust.

How is enslaving the children "helping" them?

Thanks for the help bro, but it isn't appreciated! I bet that this guy is one of those folks who can't help even himself, yet talks about how others should be helped.

Also the extremely wealthy mostly pay taxes and do not get as much in return, unless talking about the likes of Hillary Clinton who has figured out ways to game the tax-payer money. Social security would be one of her tools.

If take away SS, you will have the elderly panhandling. Not good.

The wealthy should pay most of the taxes. They have the money and many of them use connections to government to earn huge sums.