Social Security: Successful Failure (success with citizens who've opted into group subjugation)

American Thinker ^ | 12/19/2010 | Marc H. Rudov

[SeekAndFind]

Social Security has the dual distinction of being both an abysmal failure and a whopping success, and that's not just political double-speak. It all depends on which side of the coin you favor.

As the most-egregious -- and unconstitutional -- Ponzi scheme of all time (today's elderly recipients are funded by young workers, not from their own contributions of yore), Social Security is irreversibly insolvent. In 1950, the worker-to-beneficiary ratio was 16.5 to 1. In 2010, that ratio is almost 2 to 1.

Notwithstanding the political nonsense, Social Security's failure is rooted not in actuarial anomalies, but in the violation of immutable psychology: people succeed only when they are responsible for their own decisions and actions. When government manages your life, it will fail -- and therefore, you will fail.

Examples of socialism's failure abound -- from the Weimar Republic to the Soviet Union to Cuba. Even the history of Thanksgiving provides such a lesson. The colonists at Plymouth Plantation were starving because of laziness and dependence on the industrious few who produced food. In 1623, Massachusetts Governor Bradford fixed the problem by abolishing socialism and mandating self-sufficiency. He gave each household a parcel of land and the right to keep or trade any food produced -- or face starvation. End of famine.

Freedom from Government

We've read and heard ad nauseam that politicians violate trust funds and lockboxes, but any attempts to privatize Social Security -- George W. Bush considers his inability to do so his greatest failure -- always result in bitter political wars and higher taxes.

In a country that 234 years ago fought for and barely won freedom from England, how could freedom from government ever rise again to become the source of a political war? Apparently, a lot of people want to be controlled like children.

Since America's inception, there's been an ongoing battle between federalists (who value the Constitution, strong states, small central government, and individual liberty) and proponents of federalism (who prize strong central government, weak states, and malleable groups of citizens). Clearly, given America's current socialistic way of life, federalism reigns supreme.

Uncle Sam's Ponzi Scheme

The anti-privatization crowd always makes the same argument for Social Security: we can't allow our elders -- who are adults -- to be vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the stock market. Really? Better their nest eggs should depend on a system of corrupt, narcissistic politicians; high taxes; high debt; high unemployment; and a shrinking tax base?

Big Government "succeeds" only with citizens who've opted in to group subjugation and out of individual liberty. Like little puppies fetching the master's stick, they obediently buy the right lightbulb, eat the right food, drive the right car, say the right thing, visit the right doctor, pay more taxes (or none at all), and retire on government funds. As of September 2010, 43M people (14% of the total population) were receiving food stamps. Success!

Without increasingly oppressive taxation and a corresponding hike in the retirement age, Uncle Sam's Ponzi scheme is mathematically unsustainable. Because half of Americans pay zero income taxes, and 25% pay 86%, today's young workers know that they'll never receive a dime from this "security" money hole when they retire.

According to the Social Security Administration, in the over-65 crowd, more than 50% of married couples and 72% of singles get the majority of their income from Uncle Sam's Ponzi scheme. This is blatant intergenerational fraud and wealth redistribution.

Furthermore, for the first time since 1983, Social Security expenditures are expected to exceed tax receipts in 2010 by $41B (excluding interest income). So why is anyone surprised that during the Great Recession, Social Security is broken -- again?

Welfare of Society

If the intent of Social Security was to provide economic security to retirees (was that the intent?), then what is the origin of its name? Glad you asked.

At the beginning of the 1930s, "economic security" was the term used by the original authors of the legislation and by President Roosevelt. But Abraham Epstein, the man credited with introducing the term "social security" to America and the world, changed everything. As a national leader in the social-welfare movement, in the first half of the 20^th century, Epstein opined:

I insisted on the term "social security" because by that time I had a clear conception of the differences which lay between the concept of social insurance as worked out by Bismarck in Germany and the conception of social protection as elaborated in England. I definitely did not want "social insurance" because this would give it the German twist of the actuarial insurance concept in terms of compulsory savings, which do not justify governmental contributions. I did not want "economic security" because what I hoped for was not only a form of security for the workers as such but that type of security which would, at the same time, promote the welfare of society as a whole, as I was convinced that no improvement in the conditions of labor can come except as the security of the people as a whole is advanced.

Obviously, the socialistic, progressive "people as a whole" concept caught on, dismissing individual liberty and responsibility, and the rest is insolvency...I mean history. Didn't the lesson of Plymouth Plantation sink in? Does it ever?

FDR liked the new term, and the Social Security Act of 1935 was born, littered with the words "social" and "general welfare." If Social Security were such a great idea and a huge success, there would be overwhelming evidence, right? Where is it?

The No-Nonsense Bottom Line

If financial independence is the goal, then Social Security is an abysmal failure. If, however, irreversible dependence on Big Government is the goal, then Social Security is a whopping success. Social Security, therefore, is a successful failure. Again, it depends on the side of the coin you favor. Let's just hope that coin is made of gold.

Marc Rudov is an author, speaker, branding expert, and radio/TV personality.

[November 2010]

40% of every dollar government spends is borrowed. The debt is immense, not just the deficit. We will have to cut every program to survive. The era of delaying judgment day has passed. The only remaining issue is whether we survive as a free society by facing the challenge and reducing the size of government or whether we attempt to buy some security by giving up our freedom (and we will fail in both with that path, and have neither security or freedom).

[dhs12345]

Arguement from the Left: “if you don't like it just opt out.”

My answer: sounds like a great idea — lets see, decades of work life and contributing into the system, times the typical deduction plus employer match, plus interest and inflation adjustment.... ~$500 grand should just about cover it. Now pay up and I'll opt out.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: ~$500 grand should just about cover it. Now pay up and I’ll opt out.

---

Left response: “Give us a few moments to call Helicopter Ben, he’ll print the money for you.”

[DonaldC]

Many things in life are a ponzi scheme one way or another. Unless we are all prepared to take in and care for our elderly family members, it is probably a good thing Social Security is there. Not that reforms are not needed as like all gov programs, SS does much more than retiree benefits and imho it shouldn’t.

[dhs12345]

Lol. How true, how true.

I want it in gold, then! A few bricks from Fort Knox should do it.

[stylin19a]

for 40 years SS sucked. Now that I’m getting close ? different story... :)

[dhs12345]

Agreed. SS is not the issue. And people paid into the system expecting fair treatment. No issue here.

The issue: it is how it was mismanaged and false promises (dare I say lies).

And the government continues with the lies and they force very similar programs down the throats of Americans — Obamacare.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

****Social Security is irreversibly insolvent. In 1950, the worker-to-beneficiary ratio was 16.5 to 1. In 2010, that ratio is almost 2 to 1.****

Nonsense. Here is proof from 1964! You SO trust your government, don’t you? ;-D

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssa/usa1964-2.html

Self-Supporting

“The program is designed so that contributions plus interest on the investments of the social security trust funds will be sufficient to meet all of the costs of benefits and administration, now and into the indefinite future—without any subsidy from the general funds of the Government. Both the Congress and the Executive Branch, regardless of political party in power, have scrupulously provided in advance for full financing of all liberalizations in the program.”

And here is where your money goes! Read and Weep!

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#n4

[semantic]

You sir, are a useful idiot. Go ahead, make sure Uncle Thug acts as the middle-man, otherwise you might have to support your own parents.

Riddle me this: what happens when SS goes to 1:2? That is, once each working person supports two retired parents. How does first giving the money to the Feds, who then distribute it to your parents (after first taking their cut of around 50% or so for "expenses"), work better?

[dhs12345]

Reminds me of the “Dumb and Dumber” movie where Daniels and Carrey dropped a IOUs into the brief case whenever they removed cash. At the end, there was no cash and the brief case was stuffed full of IOUs.

And they were "going to pay it all back, too." All of it.

[DonaldC]

And you are probably not old enough yet to have dealt with aged parents and the reason it would go to 1:2 is the me-me-me generations not taking time to raise families and in that, they will reap what they have sewn.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

****In 1950, the worker-to-beneficiary ratio was 16.5 to 1. In 2010, that ratio is almost 2 to 1.****

So if you have twenty million retirees you must also have 40 million workers supporting them.

And when those 40 million retire they must have 80 million new workers supporting them.

And when those 80 million retire they must have 160 million new workers supporting them.

And when those 160 million retire they must have 320 million workers supporting them.

And when those 320 million retire they must have 640 million workers supporting them!

And when those 640 million retire you must have 1 billion 280 million workers supporting them.

No wonder the Gov’t wants more imigration!

It can not be substained and will collapse.

Try this. Take a calender. Put one grain of rice on “day 1” (The retiree).
Put two grains on “day 2” (The workers).

4 grains on “day 3”.

8 grains on “day 4”.

16 on “day 5”.

How many grains of rice will you have on “day 31” (workers supporting the retirees on day 30)?

[thesharkboy]

Social Security is unconstitutional. Isn't that all that we need to know? If something is unconstitutional, it is illegal. Period. Solvent or insolvent, useful or not, it doesn't matter if the federal government is not expressly granted this power in the Constitution. Isn't that really all that we need to know about Social Security?

[dhs12345]

How about just a 1 to 1 — I put in x dollars, I get x dollars back. SS can't even survive with this model.

Ignores inflation, but it is better than nothing.

Lemme guess... administrative costs are too high... in addition to the continual raiding of the money from the fund.

[DonaldC]

Referring to your example, that is why the retirement age needs to float upwards, although that won’t be popular. Life expectancy has increased and in theory so has the productive life span. SS also needs to be returned to a supplemental level of income rather than a primary one for retirees, but that part cannot be done overnight. It would also help if the masses had access to better paying jobs, but that’s an issue for another thread, I’m sure.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***How about just a 1 to 1 — I put in x dollars, I get x dollars back. SS can’t even survive with this model.****

How about this... You pay in all your working life. At 70 years of age you can retire FOR 5 YEARS, then you must be interned to be processed into a little green protein cracker to help feed the younger generation. ;-D

[thesharkboy]

How about this... You pay in all your working life. At 70 years of age you can retire FOR 5 YEARS, then you must be interned to be processed into a little green protein cracker to help feed the younger generation. ;-D

We can call this program Soylent Security.

[dhs12345]

“Its People!”

Scary, but maybe half true. Heard that when they created SS and set the 65 year retirement age, the life expectancy was less than 65 years. So, they were hoping that people would die before they were able to draw from it. “Unfortunately,” we are living longer than we should.

The scary question is: “what will they do.” Severely restrict the plan, continue to the push retirement age out, higher taxes, a lot higher inheritance taxes,... death panels.... etc., all with the efficiency of the DMV.

[TruthConquers]

That is correct.

That is what they will do and more... Read about organ harvester in NY already. Ready to rip out your organs so that the medical types can at least make more money.

The Government lied, and Grandma is going to be murdered.