I see you are here peddling your bogus two trillion dollar price tag on Sicial Security reform.
I thought I had educated you to the nature of your mistake on another thread, but here goes again.
If you don't get it this time, perhaps you are UNWILLING to face the truth and that you are here for one purpose: to lie and propagandize. I hope that isn't the case.
Get this straight: Letting people keep any amount of their own money, whether one dollar or two trillion dollars doesn't "cost" anyone anything. Meanwhile, we need to sunset the present ruinous system.
So where is it you think that this two trillion dollar expense will come from? I suppose you are referring to the cost of supporting the retirees who have already had their money stolen and as a result are dependent on the Social Security handouts. If so, you need to be aware that this will cost us whatever it costs us, whether two, three, or four trillion dollars, and there is no escaping this expense.
As a nation we are already obligated to keep the faith with those of us, like me, who have been forced to pay into the old system all our lives.
The issue is really whether we allow the present system to sunset, or whether we try to do the impossible: perpetuate a Ponzi scheme in perpetuity.
You seem to come down on the side of continuing the fraud.
If you are posting in sincerity, please open your mind. If you are just trying to stir things up, why don't you go elsewhere.
If you really don't understand the situation, as you seem to imply, write me.
Here is the issue. If everyone continues to pay, just like they always have, then per Cato Institute, we're $12 Trillion short. The reason why we're $12 Trillion short is that current contributions DON'T COVER current retirees - that's the gist of the SS problem. Now, if people DON'T continue to pay into the current system, but divert that same money to another account, then we're even MORE short because the money has been diverted! That will eventually be partially recouped when those who have diverted money eventually use it at retirement, but that will be much further down the road - NOT in the midst of the baby boomer retirement, which is the problem in the first place! Consequently, we have to cover the $12 Trillion PLUS the additional amounts ($50 Billion plus per year) in order to allow everyone to retire. My point is that the 'fix' doesn't actually fix the problem! We are still $12 Trillion in the hole!
The figures I used also assume that not everyone will opt for the accounts (unlikely) and that the program will be capped at $2000 per year (unknown at this point). If either of those two variables head toward the worst case scenario of ALL participants opt for accounts and/or ALL social security contributions may be diverted, then you're talking about a plan that would cause a HUGE deficit! Do you know, for a fact, what Congress would do with this plan when they get it?
NO ONE has suggested that those who have paid into the system should not receive retirement benefits when they retire. Sunsetting the plan any time soon would do exactly that because the government simply does not have the money to cover current and future retirees who have paid into the system without the social security tax to generate revenue. Social Security costs $500 Billion per year.
I would MUCH prefer to keep my own money rather than let the government squander it. However, the system was created before I was even born and it exists. Trying to kill it would be politically impossible. So, the only viable political solution is to fix it, including in a Republican controlled Congress. If they want to make private accounts a part of the fix, then they have to somehow fund the $12 Trillion shortfall IN ADDITION to whatever it costs to set up private accounts. That's a budget buster without tax increases.
What I'm TRYING to avoid is a fix that puts us deeper in red ink.
Yes, I would LOVE for them to balance the budget, but it seems they've forgotten how to do that and they resist every effort to make them do it.
Sadly, it's you who need the education.
I will continue to try, however.