It's Mine, I'm entitled to it

[Jccarlton]

Robert Heinlein wrote a long time ago that the elderly would continue to demand what they thought they were entitled to regardless of the consequences to the country. The comments to this American Thinker piece bear that out:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/ ... ments.html

[kunkmiester]

Maybe the source of funds to repair the gaping hole in the plan should have been paid with the profits generated by that generation?

That was the plan. SS was getting all sorts of extra money that would have been fine for use now, but te democrats "borrowed" from the fund to pay for other crap, and now there's nothing. Technically, it's not Social Securities' fault, it's the politicians who "borrowed" the money.

And technically, it's been a LONG time since the repubs were "conservative." Calling them that especially now would be like calling a duck a swan.

[Carl White]

I'd like to know what you are proposing as an alternative.

I think one of the comments sums it up well:

"As an individual who paid into SS for 47 years at maximum rate (4.7 times the minimum quarters) and Medicare for 40 years I believe that I should receive, am entitled to, the benefits currently being paid to me. I had no choice with regard to participation and the government now has no choice."

Now that they can't work any more, you want to take it away from them? What are they supposed to do then?

The real problem is that the government stopped funding social security as a pension plan a long time ago, instead scooping the money and replacing it with I.O.U's. Don't blame the elderly for that.

[TallDave]

The real problem is that SocSec was not tied to actuarial realities. It is absurdly generous by the standards of the 1940s or 1950s.

They need to gradually bring it in line with actuarial reality. Yes, that means people will eventually have to work until they're at least 70, maybe 75. Yes, people who paid in feel entitled to retire sooner. Tough. Some of us pay huge income taxes that we never see a dime of again.

When SocSec was started, you were lucky to live long enough to receive it; there were ten workers for every recipient. We're fast approaching a ratio of 3:2. That means the retired are basically a leisure class being supported by the productive. No society can survive its leisure class growing larger than the productive classes.

We can only afford so much feel-good socialism before the whole thing starts to collapse on itself; the numbers of entitled are growing -- and they're voting for more largesse. We are running up against de Tocqueville's warning that democracies only last until the majority finds a way to vote itself the treasury.

[Diogenes]

All of the comments so far have basically glossed over the Elephant in the room. Social Security was never viable, just as it's critics at the beginning said.

From the Social Security Administration's own website we find the following.

Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.

For those of you who are math challenged, i'll summarize. She paid in $24.75 She received $22,888.92.

She received 905 times the money she paid in.

Only an IDIOT would think this was a viable program.

It is also par for the course for every Democrat program in history. A complete and utter failure.

[Carl White]

Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.

Alright, I looked her up. She lived for 36 years after retirement. Her employer made a matching contribution, and $22,888.92 measured in 1939 dollars is a lot less. So that figure of 9000 times payout is off, and this is probably the most extreme of cases (she also was the very first person to receive a payout).

Also, it's not as though a lot of the elderly stop paying taxes the day they retire. Plently of them continue to pay, quite possibly more than they are taking out in benefits.

[MSimon]

The rich got their money in the USA by improving the lot of the not so rich. They took the risks of new development.

I have a 10 T1 pipe to my computer - and I didn't invest a dime for it (I did do a little work on precursor technologies). I have a 10 Cray 1 equivalent on my desktop with a Tera byte of storage that I didn't invest a dime for. I have central air and piped in gas that I didn't pay a dime for. Electricity was rolled out by that "crook" J.P. Morgan.

I could go on.

I live better than the Kings of 1850. And you are telling me I have been ripped off? On what planet?

[Jccarlton]

The rich got their money in the USA by improving the lot of the not so rich. They took the risks of new development.

I have a 10 T1 pipe to my computer - and I didn't invest a dime for it (I did do a little work on precursor technologies). I have a 10 Cray 1 equivalent on my desktop with a Tera byte of storage that I didn't invest a dime for. I have central air and piped in gas that I didn't pay a dime for. Electricity was rolled out by that "crook" J.P. Morgan.

I could go on.

I live better than the Kings of 1850. And you are telling me I have been ripped off? On what planet?

You know, for a investment banker and financier(probably the best that America has ever had) it's amazing just how much a geek he was. As for being a crook, that's just the usual Progressive plop. As far as I can tell and I have been trying to get inside Mr. Morgan's head for years now, he was a man of the highest integrity.