Report: Social Security And Medicare Will Bankrupt America Faster Than We Thought

[ananda]

Well, let's take a little history lesson.

Social Security was formed during the Great Depression, where it didn't much matter if communities banded together because people had nothing to band together with. The elderly were not faring well in this environment, and so without magical communities coming forth to take care of the elderly (since there was no program before and everybody SHOULD have been happy and healthy but somehow that just wasn't the case... somehow...), the government authorized a program that would give some ability to the elderly to sustain themselves. The program is very popular because most people recognize that a lot of elderly people cannot work due to their age and might not be able to get others to care for them.

There were other aspects of gov't deception involved ... namely fiat currency, debt banking, and other related issues. Social security was merely a temporary bandage concealing over other problems. The foundation is crooked - the currency itself is rotten - how can anything built on top of it be anything but rotten too?

It's impossible to create local, self-sustaining communities when the core - money itself - cannot be relied on.

 

[LoAmmi]

There were other aspects of gov't deception involved ... namely fiat currency, debt banking, and other related issues. Social security was merely a temporary bandage concealing over other problems. The foundation is crooked - the currency itself is rotten - how can anything built on top of it be anything but rotten too?

It's impossible to create local, self-sustaining communities when everything is rotten to the core.

I think fiat currency is better than a gold standard currency. Debt banking has allowed for a lot of economic growth when used responsibly.

 

[ananda]

I think fiat currency is better than a gold standard currency. Debt banking has allowed for a lot of economic growth when used responsibly.

I am wholly against economic growth. Everything that goes up must come down - it is the law. Therein lies great sufferings for the masses.

 

[LoAmmi]

I am wholly against economic growth. Everything that goes up must come down - it is the law.

I don't even know how to answer that. It's like saying you are wholly against technology.

 

[ananda]

I don't even know how to answer that. It's like saying you are wholly against technology.

I am for economic balance. In balance, there is equanimity, and a measure of relief from suffering for all.

 

[Speedwell]

Because the former is voluntary and the latter involves force - forced redistribution of the younger generation's wealth to the older generation, for example.

Being a citizen of the United States is a volunteer position. You are free to leave at any time if you disagree with the policies the group decides on.

 

[drjean]

Let's just fill our the rest of the definition instead of just cutting the portion of it that you want:
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 to create the false appearance that investors are profiting from a legitimate business.


Does Social Security fit that?

No. It does not. Nobody is being promised high returns with little or no risk. Nobody is making it seem like earlier-stage investors are getting high returns in order to attract new people. Nice try though.

Please don't goad.
Yes, it was sold to those of us that continued it as a great investment for our futures.

Well, let's take a little history lesson.

Social Security was formed during the Great Depression, where it didn't much matter if communities banded together because people had nothing to band together with. The elderly were not faring well in this environment, and so without magical communities coming forth to take care of the elderly (since there was no program before and everybody SHOULD have been happy and healthy but somehow that just wasn't the case... somehow...), the government authorized a program that would give some ability to the elderly to sustain themselves. The program is very popular because most people recognize that a lot of elderly people cannot work due to their age and might not be able to get others to care for them.

The initial program was only for 1 or 2 years' benefits--a lump sum upon retirement to get you to death. The retirement age was 64 and the average worker died at age 65.

The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940.

 

[ananda]

Being a citizen of the United States is a volunteer position. You are free to leave at any time if you disagree with the policies the group decides on.

Did the vast majority of citizens (including all relevant generations) vote for that specific policy, and when was this vote held?

 

[Halbhh]

I imagine that if such schemes did not exist, a radical restructuring of society would happen:

• People would become more friendly, loving, and compassionate - under the knowledge that they must be congenial, for their families, relatives, neighbors, & community/social groups are those whom they'll have to rely on in the end; therefore,
  
• Those local communities would grow stronger, and those local communities would voluntarily support their members in their collectives, those they know among themselves to be genuinely weak, elderly, incapacitated, etc. ;
  
• There would exist little or no tolerance for those who try to "game their system" or fake disability, etc. and it would be impossible to do so because they personally know each other.

Of course, it's obvious that this kind of restructuring would not be in the interest of government.

On the other hand, because we have these existing gov't schemes, the opposite characteristics come into play: people don't truly care for one another and grow more selfish, thinking gov't will care for them and for others ("why should I care for this guy on the street? my taxes, etc. already go to pay for these systems to help people like him."). Local communities are destroyed, and gaming the gov't system becomes the norm.

I think that's all correct (but the minor likely wrong guess about it being a 'norm' (normal and near universal) to game the system, since in reality a fair number of people, a sizable minority tending to majority for some things, will in reality forego benefits they can have (like food stamps), because they don't want the handout; fact.)

It's a very good point that without the social safety net, everyone must be more interdependent, more 'congenial' as you worded it. I think so too. Now, as a Christian, I have to do "love your neighbor as yourself" (or be trying however partial my success) because it's an outright commandment to me from God. (But notice additionally that Love your neighbor is a much more pleasant and enjoyable life right here and right now.) But for a non believer just the practical necessity during life will indeed have an effect also. But for every 20 or whatever old people that live pleasantly with their extended family or with friends in a community, there will be 1 (or some number) very desperate, and some becoming skin and bones, because they won't go to the local charity food pantry. We may privately try to find the neighbors nearby without community and invite them, but some won't be found of course.

 

[ananda]

But for every 20 or whatever old people that live pleasantly with their extended family or with friends in a community, there will be 1 (or some number) very desperate, and some becoming skin and bones, because they won't go to the local charity food pantry.

I would say that their local community will know of it - whether that community consists of close family, relatives, or friends. Nobody can truly disconnect from their local community for long, especially if they've been part of that community for a while and developed close relationships.

Now, if it was their choice to disconnect, then - as a member of their community - I would be concerned, and rely on my knowledge to discern their reasons, and evaluate their mental capacity. If sane, I would respect their choice.

 

[Halbhh]

I would say that their local community will know of it - whether that community consists of close family, relatives, or friends. Nobody can truly disconnect from their local community for long, especially if they've been part of that community for a while and developed close relationships.

Now, if it was their choice to disconnect, then - as a member of their community - I would be concerned, and rely on my knowledge to discern their reasons, and evaluate their mental capacity. If sane, I would respect their choice.

Yes. And all this version of what to do works fairly well for the old when times are good. When there is no dust bowl, nor Great Depression. During good times, it can work fairly well to keep old people fed reasonably. But when 1/4th of the population is out of work....then lookout! That's when revolution begins to press against the status quo, and more unusual measures are taken before general collapse (like the Bank crisis of early 1933) cause a general collapse in all the economy.

Great Depression - Wikipedia

 

[ananda]

Yes. And all this version of what to do works fairly well for the old when times are good. When there is no dust bowl, nor Great Depression. During good times, it can work fairly well to keep old people fed reasonably. But when 1/4th of the population is out of work....then lookout! That's when revolution begins to press against the status quo, and more unusual measures are taken before general collapse (like the Bank crisis of early 1933) cause a general collapse in all the economy.

Great Depression - Wikipedia

IMO depressions, massive unemployment, general collapse, bank crises, etc. wouldn't generally happen if the money was stable (e.g. no fiat currency, no debt-based banking, etc.). Those problems are direct symptoms of inherent instabilities & manipulations of fiat currency.

 

[Halbhh]

IMO depressions, massive unemployment, general collapse, bank crises, etc. wouldn't generally happen if the money was stable (e.g. no fiat currency, no debt-based banking, etc.). Those problems are direct symptoms of inherent instabilities & manipulations of fiat currency.

Banks loaning money isn't reliant on the currency being fiat, but instead on the bank wanting to loan money out. For profit.

Because of increasing savings people are doing.

Speculative bubbles are natural, because of an increasing availability of money saved up, and available then to be lent out.

See? Natural outcome of increasing abundance.

Banks that lend out can afford to pay higher interest to their customers with savings accounts (CDs, etc.).

See? A bubble is totally inevitable in time, if there is enough savings, which merely relies on the passage of time and increasing productivity. Using gold as currency, or gold backed, etc., has no effect on that basic reality.

 

[ananda]

Banks loaning money isn't reliant on the currency being fiat, but instead on the bank wanting to loan money out. For profit.

Because of increasing savings people are doing.

Speculative bubbles are natural, because of an increasing availability of money saved up, and available then to be lent out.

See? Natural outcome of increasing abundance.

Banks that lend out can afford to pay higher interest to their customers with savings accounts (CDs, etc.).

See? A bubble is totally inevitable in time, if there is enough savings, which merely relies on the passage of time and increasing productivity. Using gold as currency, or gold backed, etc., has no effect on that basic reality.

Your argument would be more persuasive if the system was not fractional-reserve. Banks are deceptively loaning out currency they don't have - another form of fiat currency.

 

[Halbhh]

Your argument would be more persuasive if the system was not fractional-reserve. Banks are deceptively loaning out currency they don't have.

Ah...but you've simply described banking when you say 'fractional reserve'. Yes? What bank doesn't lend money on savings deposit, like in CDs..... It's always the case that banks lending out money are lending out other people's money, having only a little capital of their own. The Fed has done well to increase that requirement though!

 

[ananda]

Ah...but you've simply described banking when you say 'fractional reserve'. Yes? What bank doesn't lend money on savings deposit, like in CDs..... It's always the case that banks lending out money are lending out other people's money, having only a little capital of their own. The Fed has done well to increase that requirement though!

... and I believe that to be completely immoral and unethical. It fuels economic bubbles and depressions, things which destroy livelihoods.

Most people I've spoken with have little knowledge of the concept of fractional reserve banking, so it's also a deceptive system.

 

[Halbhh]

... and I believe that to be completely immoral and unethical. It fuels economic bubbles and depressions, things which destroy livelihoods.

Most people I've spoken with have little knowledge of the concept of fractional reserve banking, so it's also a deceptive system.

ah, perhaps so. Word the question differently -- "Do you think banks loan out other people's money, like the money savers put into CDs at that bank?" Then you will get a more clear answer about what people know, and I'm curious what they do understand.

 

[ananda]

ah, perhaps so. Word the question differently -- "Do you think banks loan out other people's money, like the money savers put into CDs at that bank?" Then you will get a more clear answer about what people know, and I'm curious what they do understand.

Do you believe that it is moral and ethical to kite checks?

 

[Halbhh]

Do you believe that it is moral and ethical to kite checks?

lol

 

[ananda]

lol

No doubt, you know the full implications of my question.