I would be interested to hear opposition to the stated "facts" in this video...
Has anyone done an extensive research on the origins of Social Security?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4BjLrTq … r_embedded
Gary DeMar is a religious, anti-gay whack job not an expert on Social Security--
"Gary DeMar is an American writer, lecturer and the president of American Vision, an American Christian nonprofit organization. The think-tank has a vision of "an America that recognizes the sovereignty of God over all of life and where Christians are engaged in every facet of society".
"The Southern Poverty Law Center declared the American Vision an anti-gay group. According to author Evelyn Schlatter, these groups have "continued to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities." The American Family Association will be listed as a hate group in 2011."
The fact is that Social Security can continue paying full benefits without any changes for 25 years and reduced benefits thereafter. A few relatively minor changes will put it on a sound financial footing for the foreseeable future. De Mar is correct on some of his facts about Social Security but is far off base on his conclusions.
Many early American Progressives admired the German collectivist style government. Many American's in the early 20th century studied in German universities or had German professors teach at American colleges. The problem with progressive collectivist ideas is first of all they reject the American Founders values of self- governance and personal freedom in favor of the collectivist view of advancing society through an activist and empowered state which values group rights above the rights of individuals and security above personal freedom. To the progressives, citizens rights originated with the state, whereas the Founders saw the rights of the poeple to be inalienable and originating from God. The founders viewed the role of the government to merely protect the inalienable rights already possessed by the citizens whereas progressives rejected this notion and viewed rights as a gift from the government.
Most of the original promises made about the Social Security system turned out to be false. Social security was originally promoted as a trust fund that individuals pay into as a guard against financial setbacks toward retirement. The poeple originally believed that most retirees would never recieve benifits or most who did recieve benifits would recieve less than what they paid in. But as is the case with most government bureaucracies, once thier implemented the tend to grow into something else altogether. Social security became just another source of government revenue and a wealth redistribution scheme.
"Most of the original promises made about the Social Security system turned out to be false."
Your comment is false. Social Security has and continues to fulfill it's purpose effectively. With a couple of minor changes it will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Where do you get your information? Medicare is the hard problem, not Social Security.
Ralph Deeds- Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on you to prove your position and state your sources, because writer of the forum asked: “I would be interested to hear opposition to the stated "facts" in this video...
Has anyone done an extensive research on the origins of Social Security?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4BjLrTq … r_embedded
Here's a source:"I consider myself a prime pusher of this argument, so I guess I should respond. I'd push back in two ways. First, by this definition, practically anything is hard. So I don't think this is really a useful way to think about the issue.
"Second, it's not the case that fixing Social Security will require short-term pain. Just the opposite, in fact. Most solutions phase in very slowly, and a lot of them don't even start phasing in for another decade or two. This is really the main reason I keep saying that Social Security is a pretty easy problem to fix: not only is the Social Security shortfall fairly small, but it doesn't require much short-term pain to make up. Most mainstream plans require very small tax increases that start in, say, 2020, and ramp up a tenth of a point at a time through 2040. Ditto for benefit cuts, which usually extend over the course of decades. (We're still working our way through the age limit increase put in place by the Greenspan Commission in 1983.) Most people would barely even notice it.
"Now, of course, in one way Erica is right about the non-easiness of addressing Social Security. But I think we should be clear on exactly what the source of the problem is here. It's not "Congress," and it's not "difficulty." It's the Republican Party. They're just flatly unwilling to negotiate the kind of simple, long-term plan that was perfectly acceptable to Ronald Reagan three decades ago. Instead, they insist on private accounts, but are unwilling to consider paying the transition costs. They insist on benefit cuts, but are unwilling to even talk about tax increases. These positions are crazy nonstarters and they know it, but they flatly won't consider anything else. So there's just no negotiation possible right now."
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/ … urity-easy
Everyone who has studied Social Security funding issues says that fixing it will be easy by one or a combination of the following--raising or eliminating the $100,000 income cap subject to FICA tax, adjusting the COLA formula reduce cost of living adjustments (the current formula slightly over-compensates for increases in the cost of living) and increasing the age for retiring with full benefits to reflect the fact that the average person is living longer in better health and as a result able to work productively longer.
Medicare costs increases are a much more serious problem because health care costs are increasing at an unsustainable rate. Fixing Medicare will require us to take measures to reduce the rate of increase in the cost of health care for senior citizens (stop paying for unnecessary tests and ineffective procedures, reduce medical malpractice lawsuits, change from a payment per procedure system to one of paying per capita and/or paying for results) and/or shift the cost increases from Medicare to seniors as proposed by Congressman Ryan, and/or charge higher premiums to retirees with higher incomes. None of these changes will be easy.
Thank you for actually going through all this trouble to explain your position and your sources! It appears we’re on opposite sides of the political spectrum, so we’ll probably have a hard time finding common ground on this issue. Although I will study your link and possibly give you some feedback, on it.
According to the Cato Institute, the supposed trust fund of Social Security has been spent over the last 45 years by our government. The government’s treasury department has merely issued worthless IOU’s to replace Social Security revenue spent for who knows what? These IOU’s according to Cato are not real assets but only serve to represent an accounting record of Social Security money spent. These IOU’s can only be redeemed through taxing or borrowing.
According to Daniel Mitchell PhD of The Heritage foundation, somewhere between 2013 and 2032 the money for Social Security will be totally gone and taxes must be dramatically increased and benefits reduced in order to sustain the program. Part of the reason for this is the demographics of people living longer and an aging population; the other part of the reason I already discussed. The source of most of this information is found on this link: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Report … Fund-Fraud
I don’t believe that trying to increase payroll taxes on higher income earners will generate more income. It’s my understanding that since the 1950’s till today, top income brackets have varied considerably but taxes paid by those individuals have remained pretty much of a constant of about 20%.
According to the Heritage Foundation, the change in the demographic makeup of the country put a lot more pressure on Social Security, than what was anticipated in the early 1980’s.
According to Mitchell, “Promised benefits exceed projected revenues over the next 75 years by an astounding $20 trillion”. This system is a bad deal for people because huge amounts of payroll taxes must be paid to gain meager benefits.
Privatizing the system would allow workers to invest their payroll taxes into retirement accounts on much higher yielding investments and simultaneously lowering the government’s budget liabilities. Regards-WBA
"The government’s treasury department has merely issued worthless IOU’s to replace Social Security revenue spent for who knows what?"
The IOUs are government bonds, the most secure investment available.
"Privatizing the system would allow workers to invest their payroll taxes into retirement accounts on much higher yielding investments and simultaneously lowering the government’s budget liabilities"
IRAs and 401k plans already fill this need. They could be expanded and made more atractive so as to encourage more saving. There is no reason to "privatize" Social Security, and there are good reasons not to privatize it.
I haven't done extensive research, but I think this commentator is purposely attempting to mislead. I think it is true that Bismark was one of the first in Europe to implement a widespread SS style system, but it pulled from European social welfare tradition.
I think thirty some countries had already implemented similar plans by the time the US started theirs. I don't like the way he bandies about the word socialist. It's a hot button word people use to force emotions to push aside reason.
I do realize the system is, in some ways, a pyramid scheme. But every social security official I have seen interviewed implies that politician are lying and that the system is not in jeopardy of any type of shortage of funds.
A pyramid has people who then fail to purchase stated product. This is done by a tightening of credit or by folks who understand the product is overpriced or is a scam. Social security is based upon people who will receive it continuing to work. So calling it a ponzi is the dumbest analysis I have ever heard. The housing bubble was a ponzi and although both parties were equally involved, the Republicans want the next one more.
I agree, however it is a pyramid scheme; of sorts. I don't use this term in a derogatory manner. I'm a firm supporter of the system. It has worked and will continue to.
Social Security is a form of social insurance, not an individual investment program. Some people who live into old age collect more than they contribute. Others who die young get back little or nothing of their contributions. Orphans collect even though they contributed nothing. Everyone contributes so that no one will starve when they can no longer work.
Yes it is a social program. But the many 'invest' in the program to support those at the other end. It was designed to have a wide base at the one end, to support those at the other. An inverted pyramid, in a way..but it is still a pyramid.
How are you seeing a pyramid at all? Almost everyone pays into it and almost everyone who needs it gets it. The paying structure might be similar to that of a pyramid, meaning that 5 pay for 1 or 3 pay for 2 or whatever.
But, Social Security is a socially paid insurance(security assurance) program for many things all rolled into one. The way I see it, those who don't plan for retirement are really the ones who should benefit from it, but it shouldn't be dependent upon. People shouldn't be living their life, looking forward to getting or being on Social Security.
If more people paid more attention to planning their retirement, then there would be less people on Social Security and it certainly wouldn't run out of money. Not to mention, Social Security shouldn't be used by politicians as a leverage to borrow against, either.
The whole system was started on the premise that it would be a pyramid. It isn't your money you are saving. It is your money going into the system to support others, until you reach the point where you have reached the 'top' of the system and you are no longer putting in, but drawing out.
I think you might envision something like Amway when you hear pyramid. It isn't a system of wealth acquisition. It's just a word to help envision the way it works.
It is not a fraudulent pyramid, where people will stop buying or lending. People will continue working so it is no more a pyramid than is Walmart. Walmart orders goods, and stocks stores, expecting the merchandize to be bought. Under your strict and somewhat ridiculous definition, because one person produces the goods and the other guy buys them, that the chain is somehow a pyramid. It is most certainly not. And social security is in no way a pyramid scheme.
Social Security is a pyramid scheme! How can it not be. You invest today in the hopes that future workers pay your return. Do you think that your money invested in SS is actually in an account with your name on it?
I do not say that it is fraudulent, if we can maintain a steady level of employment then the plan makes sense. Right now three workers are responsible for carrying the load of 1 SS recipient. What happens if that falls to every worker paying a recipient?
Who is John Galt?
The only reason any idiot would call Social Security a ponzi scheme is because they have an agenda to eliminate it. Any moron can tell it's not.
Social Security did(and does) have good uses, simply because of the wasteful educational system that those who want to do away with Social Security refuse to fund properly.
Ironically, these same idiots fail to understand that the average person never plans for retirement, which isn't actually taught to students in school to begin with. Not to mention, the average person also has no knowledge on "wealth creation". Most just try to save money, without ever doing anything for financial protection in the future.
What is the difference between Bernie Maddoff's Ponzi scheme and Social Security?
No one was forced to invest with Maddoff!
ta da dum
Social security is not meant to create billionaires. It is a program to ensure our elderly are not left completely destitute in their old age. It is meant to assist in the dignity of life. I don't know how anyone could compare the likes of Madoff with SS. The comparison may be valid, but I have yet to see it.
You pay your social security and that money is used to compensate current SS recipients. At first every ten workers supported one recipient. Now it is only three workers carrying a SS recipient.
The definition of a Ponzi scheme and the way SS operates is exactly the same, EXCEPT nobody is forced to invest in to a Ponzi scheme.
The use of force and duress used for collections is the only difference between SS and a Ponzi scheme. Other then force, Social Security IS a Ponzi scheme!
No it is not. Ponzi defined;
A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors and to use for personal expenses, instead of engaging in legitimate investment activity.
If you don't like the SS administration, you need to use an argument that doesn't attempt to compare it to illegal activity. This is a social program administered by the government. Not back street thugs or Wall Street criminals. We are not talking about high returns. We are talking subsistence living.
I'm not sure I understand the argument against keeping our elderly fed and housed through mandatory payroll deductions and employer contributions by the general workforce.
Solicitation is the difference. Social security investments are mandatory. That is the only difference.
There will come a time if SS is not fixed the FRAUD will be open to the light of day.
Social Security in its present form is unsustainable.
"Social Security in its present form is unsustainable."
If I'm not mistaken the SS Trustees reported recently that full benefits will be payable for 25 years with no changes.
With a few small changes SS will be on a sound financial footing for the foreseeable future. Medicare, not Social Security, is the real problem thanks to the growing older segment of the population and skyrocketing health care costs thanks to our ramshackle, for profit health care non-system.
Ralph, that is as long as we can sustain current employment numbers. The more jobs that are lost the more difficult it will be for SS.
If we can lower the number of unemployed it will be much easier to keep the program running.
SS is running amok with fraud also. Disability payments are going out to many people who also work under the table. I know this firsthand as a vendor of ours just received his retro check cuz the poor soul is so disabled, he shows up everyday for work.
"Disability payments are going out to many people who also work under the table."
Can't disagree with you on that. I know somebody who looks pretty healthy to me who's on SS disability. I haven't seen any data estimating the actual extent and cost of disability fraud, however. Any program that's giving money away attracts fraud like flies on horse turds. I've read that Medicare criminal fraud is a huge problem.
This all needs to be fixed, by who I do not care. I wish someone with more concern for their Country over their career would appear on the scene.
The people need to be told the truth, we can fix this if everyone knew the situation we are in. Americans are not afraid to sacrifice for the betterment of the nation.
If the huddled masses know what needs to be done, I have no qualms that We the People can withstand it, rise above it and be a more unified and stronger nation for it.
I think the one thing that the majority of The People have in common is love of Country. We need leadership, true leadership! Not divisive party puppets.
Who says SS is the best way to feed and help our elderly?
Is it that you think a newer better system cannot be created?
Or do you really believe that, oh well it works somewhat so it is fine?
You all always run to the killing the old and disabled instead of staying on course and realizing that not all things have to go to the extreme.
We can do better by our elderly, disabled and young, than that BS system we have now.
You know it is funny you all worry about the poor and alderly but no-one has complained that in 2 or more years while proices have shot through the roof... our elderly and disabled on SS have not got a cost of living increase... cheated by Obama and the Left and not one peep from any of you all Leftists.
And how are you today Emile? Well i hope, and enjoying the beautiful weather.
Our elected representatives and a wide majority of Americans say SS is "the way to feed and help our elderly" despite the flood of misleading propaganda claiming that young people won't get promised benefits. Bush tried his best to turn SS over to the Wall Street banksters, but didn't get very far.
In Madoff the returns could not be sustained by new investors paying off the old. In social security, people always work. People have always worked from the beginning of time. Because of the certainty of the need for people to work, social security cannot be a ponzi scheme. There is a supply chain of sorts, but that is not a ponzi scheme any more than the supply chain at Walmart is a ponzi scheme.
I must be an idiot because I can see clearly that social security is a ponzi scheme. It requires new workers paying into it for longer periods of time to keep paying out. How is that different than a ponzi scheme?
Nice to see you're twisting it for your own reasoning. Also nice to see you lack compassion for others. Good show on you.
I'm not twisting anything, that's how social security works. If by telling the truth I am showing a lack of compassion then I'm alright with it.
Actually you are twisting it. Telling the truth? You'd be lucky if you knew what a truth was. Good luck going forward.
Then please explain to me how I am wrong. You haven't said anything other than nuh uh.
Why don't you try reading something else I've already posted. The TRUTH that you lack compassion for other people is evident in your attitude.
I think I'll pass on reading what you have written, the depth of your arguments would probably confuse me. This is the part where you tell me I lack understanding or whatever other pseudo intellectual response you are known for.
I'm sure you would pass up reading such a small paragraph. Not a surprise.
I'm sorry, I just don't find you very enlightening.
I figured as much. Willful ignorance of people is a huge problem in America and you're not willing to overcome it. Again, good show.
so interesting the many views of what SS is. But it seems to me that anyone relying on any government system for their life sustinance is living a dream that could easily turn nightmare.
I want to put my own money in my own account, period. And it is not Constitutional for the government to make me, take from me, money that I have earned, aqnd then turn around whenever they want and take it from that account to use as they wish, period. That is why I don't like banks either...they use your money and if they should ever fail, it's gone, period.
How anyone can put so much trust into systems that don't even know who you are and make you put money in their systems and then use your assets in any way they wish.
How would you feel if you retired in 2007 and was conservatively invested in, say 1/3 CD savings, 1/3 bonds and 1/3 stocks? Your savings, by now would be earning about 1 - 2%, your equities would have tanked severely, and bonds, not much better-- and when interest rates do start to rise (because of inflation) bonds will be hit. A lot of people are already in that position, having saved their own money for retirement. Social Security was meant as a safety net-- not a person's sole retirement and the private sector has already destroyed many well-laid plans. So let's take away social security so people can retire rich when they can put that extra money to work in the hands of... who? Financial advisors recommending products they get commissions on? Annuities sold by insurance companies? Who DO you trust? Let's hope you make the right decision at the right time.
Yet another shining example of a lack of compassion for others. Good for you. You must be proud of yourself.
"But it seems to me that anyone relying on any government system for their life sustinance is living a dream that could easily turn nightmare."
That might be good advice if the Tea Party were to take over. However, the majority of Americans support preserving and strengthening the current Social Security program, not turning it over to the Wall Street banksters as proposed by George Bush. Rick Perry has slit his own throat with his claim that Social Security is an unconstitutional Ponzi scheme.
They want to preserve it for those that are currently making use of it, and that is sound. But for those who are just starting to put into it or won't need to start making use of it for at least another decade, it makes sense to fix the problems with it and allow people to opt out and choose to use their own money in their own way. I can't beleive that is so hard to understand, that I want to do with my money what I want to do with my money.
It will take only a combination of small adjustments to put Social Security on a sound financial footing for the foreseeable future--1. Removing the earnings cap subject to FICA tax or raising and indexing it so that it will increase with inflation; 2. Increasing the eligibility age required for normal benefits to reflect the fact that people are living longer in good health and capable of longer productive working lives; and 3. Making a small adjustment in the cost of living formula to reflect the fact that the current formula over-compensates for cost of living increases. I don't believe the majority of Americans support privatizing Social Security which would mean turning their contributions over to Wall Street. IRAs and 401ks should be improved in order to provide more adequate retirement income in addition to Social Security.
Actually, I think you fail to take into account that the FDIC is in place so you don't lose money if the banks fail. And, please, if you think there is security in individual retirement accounts I can show you my 401k and profit sharing reports before the stock market slump and now. They have never recovered completely. And with the European market in the shape it's in I may see a considerable drop again.
I read something recently about the FDIC, that it was not safe either, couldn't be counted on...I will have to give that some thought to remember what it was I read.
no, I don't mean an account where someone else influences it...I mean like my cookie jar at home or my mattress!!!
I suppose you could stuff your mattress with enough money to retire on. Actually, we sold a piece of equipment to a guy about a year ago and he paid cash, seven thousand dollars that looked as if he had dug it up. So, there appear to be others out there doing it. Good luck.
To my knowledge the FDIC has never failed to pay off up to the limit on an insured deposit. Why is it that you distrust our government so much?
Just curious, where did you read that the FDIS is "not safe?"
So how much you got saved? Assuming you will never collect social security. Actually banks are insured by the government. I am on social security. I trust the government. I don't trust
you trust the government???
This whole idea that a system can be trusted doesn't work for me...a system is made up of people that think in all kinds of divergent ways...systems morph and then you have what we see now in SS/...who projected it was going to happen, let alone see what was going to happen
Heck, the whole fact that there are over 50 million less citizens to pay into the SS system because of abortion in the US shows how few people were seeing down the road
You can try Somalia. They don't have much government there. Good place to retire.
Yea let them opt out, so if Wall Street rips them off, they can go on welfare.
I have nothing against Soc Sec., or disability, or even welfare... but I do not see any of those systems as supportable structured as they are now.
Soc Sec with the addition of the baby-boomers is going to be crushed.
-"A (Very Qualified) Defense of Charles Ponzi"-
Above I've explained why the "Ponzi scheme" accusation is accurate, in the context of modern political debates. However, there is a very important sense in which it is unfair — unfair to Charles Ponzi.
It's true that Ponzi engaged in fraud; his victims never would have "invested" with him, had he accurately explained the business model. Libertarians therefore agree with everybody else that Charles Ponzi was a criminal and would have to face legal consequences in any just legal order.
However, so far as we know Ponzi never threatened anybody. He didn't tell struggling young workers, "Give me 15 percent of your paycheck every week, so that I can make you a fantastic return — or else I'll send goons to kidnap you."
In this respect, Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme after all. It's more analogous to mobsters shaking down people for protection money, because otherwise "bad things could happen."
http://mises.org/daily/5658/Is-Social-S … nzi-Scheme
Here's what employees/retirees should really be concerned about rather than Social Security--
"Retirement Heist" by Ellen Schultz
"In Ms. Schultz’s telling, there was almost nothing that some corporations wouldn’t do to pare their pension obligations, from canceling death benefits to instituting “clawbacks” — that is, informing retirees that they had somehow been overpaid and demanding a lump-sum repayment that very few were able to afford. No promise, it would appear, was too small to be broken. A reader should feel something like outrage at this kind of behavior, but I felt little, in large part because the book, especially in its first half, focuses more attention on tricks played by employers than the plight of victimized retirees. Pension abuse affects millions of Americans, yet not enough of them make it into the pages of “Retirement Heist.” ...
"She has quite a story to tell. It’s hard to distill the book’s far-flung elements into a single narrative, but it appears to come down to this: After the huge run-up in stocks during the 1980s, American corporations were sitting on billions of dollars in pension funds that weren’t going to be paid to retirees anytime soon. They began pushing to use the money themselves, an effort that resulted in a series of new accounting guidelines and federal regulations that, in time, allowed them to put pension monies to all sorts of uses never before envisioned. Financing corporate restructurings. Paying for retiree health benefits. Paying for golden parachutes. Some companies simply eliminated the pension plan altogether and took the money themselves. At the same time, Ms. Schultz shows, companies like I.B.M. steadily cut back on pension and health benefits while assuring employees that it was making the plan more “modern.”...
Read the entire book review here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/busin … ;st=Search
Repair guy, this is for you. Social security cannot be a ponzi scheme because people will always work. Walmart is not a ponzi scheme because people always buy. But even Walmart is less assured than social security. People have worked since the beginning of time. Therefore it is not a ponzi scheme. It cannot be a ponzi scheme. If wages are declining, then the adjustments need to be made on the payout. But that has nothing to do with a Madoff like ponzi or the housing bubble where prices were pushed up by the easy money loans themselves.
here's a new article...more perspective on the SS
SS: Ponzi Scheme Isn't the Problem
Monday, September 19, 2011 – by Tibor Machan
"...So that's not what's wrong with the Social Security system. The problem is that when you work, you are forced to be part of their system (with only some exceptions, such as when the state you work in has its own similar scheme in play). This, like the income tax, is a form of extortion, just like what happens when organized criminals force merchants to cough up money for them or lest they burn down the business! Sending working people to jail or imposing immense fines on them unless they pay their taxes, Social Security or otherwise, is just like that. One has no choice if one wants to make a living: "Pay the government or have no job!"..."
...What needs to be discussed about Social Security is not the Ponzi scheme element but that it is forcibly imposed on all working people in the country, nevermind whether they want it or not. It would be quite enlightening if this aspect of Social Security were debated. That would bring up a central feature of most governments, namely, their coercive nature. That is what the American founding fathers and framers were concerned about. And while they didn't reject all coercive policies – e.g., slavery, taxation – they were very hesitant about them..."
http://www.thedailybell.com/2962/Tibor- … he-Problem
"...What needs to be discussed about Social Security is not the Ponzi scheme element but that it is forcibly imposed on all working people in the country, nevermind whether they want it or not."
Just like all other laws passed by our duly elected representatives. Social Security, in my opinion, is one of the most necessary and effective such laws. Without it we'd have beggars on every corner.
Extortion is the right of government, so get over it. If you aren't for government power, Sparkling, you are an anarchist, or are falling for the old anarchist line. Some anarchists, like Ron Paul, are peaceful but most are violent.
Czolgosz believed there was a great injustice in American society, an inequality which allowed the wealthy to enrich themselves by exploiting the poor. He concluded that the reason for this was the structure of government itself. Then he learned of a European crime which changed his life: On July 29, 1900, King Umberto I of Italy had been shot dead by anarchist Gaetano Bresci. Bresci told the press that he had decided to take matters into his own hands for the sake of the common man.
The assassination shocked and galvanized the American anarchist movement, and Czolgosz is thought to have consciously imitated Bresci. New York police officer Joseph Petrosino believed that the same group had targeted President McKinley, but his warnings were useless, because McKinley ignored them.
by Petra Vlah5 years ago
Through our working years we all paid for Social Security and Medicare, so why are they considered entitlements when in fact we contributed our own money into the system?
by Ralph Deeds4 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opini … ef=opinionSocial Security, Present and FutureBy THE EDITORIAL BOARDPublished: March 30, 2013 6 Comments"In the fight over the federal budget deficit, Social Security...
by N. Ramius7 years ago
I wouldn't pay in and wouldn't collect in retirement. I wish they'd let me do that.
by OLYHOOCH5 years ago
A History Lesson on Your Social Security Card1934 - 1980With the elections just a little over 3 months away you'll soon be hearing some Democrats running for political office, warning how the Republicans...
by OLYHOOCH5 years ago
Have you noticed, your Social Security check is now referred to as a "federal benefit payment"? I'll be part of the one percent, to forward this, our government gets away with way too much in all areas of our...
by William R. Wilson6 years ago
Tea Party Patron Saint Ayn Rand Applied for Social Security, Medicare BenefitsWhat would John Galt Do?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.