Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
30 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

The "Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme" Hoax

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 2 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

Headlined to H3 2/1/11

Become a Fan
  (36 fans)

opednews.com

The current crop of Republican robbers, led by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI 1), with the backing of exclusively self-interested libertarians and objectivists, intend to destroy the Social Security system, through a privatization scheme that guarantees nothing to anyone with the possible exception of the Wall Street thieves who would be skimming their share as administrators of the plan while arrogating the rest of it to themselves with market manipulations. With that accomplished in order to avoid paying back what is owed to the system, it would turn Ronald Reagan's "borrowing" into the outright theft of this or any other century, misappropriating those trillions of payroll tax dollars to purposes for which they were not intended.

The less palatable option at their disposal is to default on those obligations, destroying the faith and credit of the United States and triggering the worst worldwide financial panic in history. The reason that they would prefer to avoid that last option is that when that happened, their transnational corporate masters would not be getting paid either, and that, after all, along with several foreign held sovereign wealth funds, is who is holding most of the debt owed by the United States.

With the current surplus, the trust funds will remain solvent for a minimum of twenty-seven more years, with that result being calculated on the assumption that the United States economy will spend that entire time in its current dismal state. There are, however, measures to be taken to extend that period for an indefinitely long time into the future.

As it stands, the top fifty percent of wage earners enjoy a greater and diverging life expectancy at the time of retirement over the bottom half of wage earners. With payroll tax caps in place for salaries above $109,000, this sets up a situation where the bottom half of wage earners are subsidizing to an unwarranted degree the benefits paid to the longer lived top half of retired wage earners. That is a clear justification for the removal of payroll tax caps. This may be accomplished with the wage earners alone paying the increase, sparing their employers from matching it.

Regarding the American People viewing Social Security as funding "a long and enjoyable retirement", perhaps you would do well to consult some American retirees who depend exclusively on Social Security to provide their fixed income. You might be swayed to a more realistic view.

In any event, a fanciful tissue of lies informs the self-serving libertarian view of the Social Security system and its problems. Perhaps, someday, libertarians will provide themselves with facts in this or any other issue, but, of course, that would end their careers as libertarians.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

I am a lifelong resident of the Chicago suburbs, with a several year hiatus to serve in the Navy when my Vietnam era draft notice turned up. I had been told that guys with last names like mine were among the preferred cannon fodder in the Army, so (more...)
 
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
30 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

We are way past the point,... by John Sanchez Jr. on Tuesday, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:23:30 AM
Pompous as always, John. by Darren Wolfe on Tuesday, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:54:13 AM
You must be kidding by Scott Baker on Tuesday, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:39:37 AM
Try to see more than just the superficial by Darren Wolfe on Tuesday, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:01:12 PM
Clarification by Scott Baker on Wednesday, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:50:38 AM
Perhaps you can cite the case... by John Sanchez Jr. on Tuesday, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:00:40 PM
You're too much by Darren Wolfe on Tuesday, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:48:10 PM
Selective citations by Scott Baker on Wednesday, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:11:06 AM
What the decision doesn't say... by Darren Wolfe on Wednesday, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:04:36 AM
A last thought about Helvering: by Darren Wolfe on Wednesday, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:11:11 AM
In Helvering vs. Davis... by John Sanchez Jr. on Wednesday, Feb 2, 2011 at 9:55:49 AM
Whatever by Darren Wolfe on Wednesday, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:17:01 AM
I don't admit that I am wrong... by John Sanchez Jr. on Wednesday, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:22:53 AM
The proof... by Darren Wolfe on Wednesday, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:37:26 AM
The last word... by John Sanchez Jr. on Wednesday, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:33:39 PM
misinformation by GUY P. FRASER on Tuesday, Feb 1, 2011 at 6:43:51 PM
Why? by Darren Wolfe on Tuesday, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:18:55 PM
Welfare for the killers: by Daniel Geery on Tuesday, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:08:22 PM
I'm with you in opposing the wars by Darren Wolfe on Tuesday, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:13:52 PM
The chart and article speak for themselves, by Daniel Geery on Tuesday, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:04:52 PM
Round two by June Genis on Tuesday, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:19:46 PM
SSI, or Supplemental Security Income... by John Sanchez Jr. on Wednesday, Feb 2, 2011 at 9:05:01 AM
round 2.5 by June Genis on Tuesday, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:30:07 PM
BTW by June Genis on Tuesday, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:31:17 PM
Additional thoughts re SS by Scott Baker on Wednesday, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:27:33 AM
whole new debate by June Genis on Wednesday, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:41:14 AM
Darren? by Darren Wolfe on Wednesday, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:41:04 AM
unless... by J. Edward Tremlett on Wednesday, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:52:58 PM
apologies by June Genis on Wednesday, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:58:47 PM
No need... by Darren Wolfe on Wednesday, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:01:51 PM