What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by NerdyShirts.com
Buy - "Kayne West Douche T Shirt" view!
nerdyshirts.com - Celebrate the Douchiest of the Douches on this T Shirt
22 Comments
- jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12There may or may not be a crisis. However, you'll never figure it out reading this article. The most blatant fallacy is the Social Security "lock box". That supposed "fix" in 1983 is nothing more than an accounting trick. The additional taxes collected have been used to "purchase" Treasury bonds, which in turn are backed up by nothing more than the governments ability to tax. When it comes time for Social Security to draw down on these "reserve" funds, the money will come from general tax revenue.
If the writer can't even get the basic facts right, how can the article be credible? - spinchange, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Unfortunately, there is quite a bit of factually incorrect information in this article. Economists, Actuaries, and Democratic politicans were saying there was a problem with Social Security long before George W. Bush was. You don't have to buy into the private accounts idea to accept that the system is unsustainable in its present form.
- jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6There isn't any free market, way too many regulations. However, the benefits of competition are easily observable. Just look at the price of cell phones.
"Government who should be holding them accountable" That's the problem. Government involvement. It ALWAYS benefits those with money, and the only solution is to get them out. Then the benefits of competition, and the rule by the consumer, can be seen. - 0xbaadf00d, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6In 1950, 16.5 people payed into Social Security for every person receiving benefits.
In 2000, 3.4 people payed into Social Security for every person receiving benefits.
Ya sure, no crisis here... - silencerider151, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Social Security was created to benefit a few people as rarely people lived to the age where they could receive it, however poor of an idea it was, it was never meant to be used like it is today. Now Social Security is just another pot for politicians to dip their hands into when they're out having million dollar parties on the government's tab. It needs to end.
- 0xbaadf00d, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4"I also read that Social Sec will be "solvent" (meaning there will be $$ to pay benefits) until 2030 according to the General Accounting Office."
So, many many people are paying into it and will get NOTHING out of it? How is that a non-crisis? - silencerider151, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3But shouldn't this be the work of private charities? And wouldn't people have more money to contribute to charity if they weren't paying additional taxes?
- dshPls, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4It's all a question of theory. We don't know what would happen if drastic changes took place, it's all speculative. The people who need healthcare the most are the ones making $18,000 a year working 2 jobs, who knows if charity would be enough to take care of their needs. This brings up another good question, should our freedom protect our desire to be self-serving and give us the option to help others? This is the route you're mentioning, only people who have the urge will donate to private charities. This is cold-hearted, but again, do we have the right to be? That's why universal Healthcare hasn't been adopted here. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue.
- MaynardJK, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@dshPls
I keep getting the session expired message whenever the thread gets 5 comments deep. I think it is just the worthless new comment system.
Anyway, if everyone is entitled to everyones' collective earnings, you are still a slave, only it is to the government a la communism. - jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Putting moral and Constitutional concepts aside for the moment, these numbers may or may not mean anything.
In 1950 the amount of otherwise disposable income per capita was smaller than in 2000. Productivity increases and the rising standard of living permit larger percentages of income to be spent on items such as Social Security without impacting daily life. On a macro level, retirees will always get their income from workers, regardless of the type of system (government enforced or personal savings). "Retirement" always involves transfer of goods from workers to retirees.
Not making a conclusion, just pointing out that there is more to it. - dshPls, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Cell Phones are a luxury, the free market is great when we have the option to not buy a product or buy another brand. People's health is different, if you have cancer, and you can't afford company A's insurance, or they reject you, then you're *****. It's happened hundreds of times, people cannot find help without going into a lifetime of debt, how would the free market fix that? Capitalism says that people who produce more spending and don't generate enough income for the said company are worthless, they're a drain of profit. Thus the person shouldn't be taken care of.
It depends if you care about other people or about yourself. You have every right in America to do either. I'm not offering some amazing solution I'm just telling it like it is. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Isn't Social Security voluntary?
/sarcasm - dshPls, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3@Maynard
My session expired, ***** digg, now even after clearing my cache it doesn't let me respond. Here's my intended response:
If everyone is entitled to everyones collective earnings, it's different. Not that I'm disagreeing that you should be free to not contribute, but your comparison is unrelated. - GabrielS, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This is a great example of how you cannot disguise a problem merely by posting your data to Digg.
- dshPls, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Yeah, I preferred the older method of commenting, like 95% of the digg community.
I agree communism isn't the way to solve all of our problems, but at the same time I think there are tasks so important that the government is the best possible way to handle them. Unfortunately the government is inefficient. It's really a philosophical thing, and getting opinions about every solution is a good thing. - MaynardJK, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"This brings up another good question, should our freedom protect our desire to be self-serving and give us the option to help others?"
When someone becomes entitled to your earnings, you become their slave. Protecting our desire to be self-serving is freedom by definition. Without it, we are not free. - 0xbadfood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0@dshPIs: The problem is that it is almost never the case that everyone is entitled to everyone's earnings. In fact, if that ever were the case then there would be exactly no transfer of wealth: You would pay $x in taxes and receive $x worth of services, at which point you might as well eliminate the middle man.
- 0xbadfood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0@dshPIs: The problem is that it is almost never the case that everyone is entitled to everyone's earnings. In fact, if that ever were the case then there would be exactly no transfer of wealth: You would pay $x in taxes and receive $x worth of services, at which point you might as well eliminate the middle man.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0In 1950, you could buy a brand new car (nice one) for roughly $2000. In 2000, I'd guess buying a car of similar quality would cost around $15000. You have to take into account for inflation over these years. Not only are there fewer people paying into the system, the federal reserve note is steadily losing spending power.
As far as retirement, it involves transfer of goods from worker to retirees when in the form of a pension. An IRA and/or 401K is money the individual has set aside for themselves to take care of themselves. While there is a thin layer of security to protect your pension, it is not absolute. If your company goes belly up, chances are your pension will go with it.
If I could take the social security money stolen from me each month and put it into a retirement plan for myself, I would be much better off than the pittance I _hope_ to receive from SS should I reach the age of retirement. - ask03, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2"Health care is effectively rationed by wealth."
This is a crazy little idea also known as Capitalism. - Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Just noting that that's a fundamentally different argument from "It's just paper, it means nothing, the sky is falling", etc.
- jamesallen74, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1I also read that Social Sec will be "solvent" (meaning there will be $$ to pay benefits) until 2030 according to the General Accounting Office.
Anyway, it occured to me last night. I found a potential flaw in Ron Paul's stands. I really like him, except I think he places too much faith in the free market. To me, the free market (in health care at least), the market is not controlled by consumers, but by the one's with the $$ and top positions. Government who should be holding them accountable are actually in bed with them (lobbyists, fund raising, etc.)
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is