[[But, that requires you to start reading and learning, rather than spouting this kind of crap.
you are willfully lying in order to agitate people that don’t know any better.
Or, just shut up because you don’t know what you are talking about, and aren’t helping.]]
I asked y7ou t5o keep it civil- apparently you’
re not capable of doing so- It was never my intention to ‘willfully lie and agitate’ people- don’t know why you even have to bring crap like that up? I was trying to have a discussion with you hoping you would clear some things up as I mentioned I probably was wrong- but I don’t really care to discuss the issue further if you’re going to act like that
Good, I got your attention.
Here's the problem: You have been arguing from a false premise, like "gun control saves lives", or "man causes global warming".
I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you about that. If you refuse to acknowledge that you're wrong, we have nothing further to discuss.
However, if you do want to discuss the real issues, I'll be happy to do so. But, you'll have to start by dropping all the "illegal aliens are stealing Social Security" crap. You've posted absolute falsehoods over and over in this thread, despite earlier postings with references that point out the flaws in your argument.
We have to move beyond arguing about non-existent or irrelevant problems, because all it does is poison the discussion about what really needs to be done.
Here's the basic truth: Social Security is in trouble because it pays more "old age" benefits than it can afford. It's been doing it for decades, despite an attempt to fix it back in the 80's. The problem is demographic and economic:
It isn't SSI. That's administrated by Social Security, but separately funded from general revenues.
It isn't disability fraud. Yes, the disability fund has its own problems, and it's actually in worse shape than the old age/survivor fund. But, it's separately accounted -- and even if you were to completely remove disability benefits (and taxes) into another program, the Social Security OASI (old age and survivor insurance) program is still in trouble.
It isn't "illegal aliens". If anything, they are actually HELPING Social Security, by paying taxes and never collecting benefits.
What I am trying to get you (and many others) to understand: Social Security old age benefits will be in jeopardy in the next two decades. So, stop whining about other stuff that is either untrue or irrelevant. They can't solve the problem.
It comes down to what I posted earlier: in order to keep Social Security going in its current form, taxes must be increased, or benefits must be reduced, or a combination thereof. And because we (collectively) have put our head in the sand for the past two decades, the changes are going to be painful. The only question is how the pain will be distributed. And, the longer we wait, the more painful it will be.
The Social Security Administration has a web page showing their evaluation of dozens of proposed changes:
Individual Changes Modifying Social Security
I highly recommend taking time to look at them, as they have some variation of almost every proposal I've seen for "fixing" Social Security. There are two simple, easy-to-understand graphs for each proposal. If you have any questions about how to interpret them, let me know and I'll explain.
But, I'll also point out that I'm actually not advocating that Social Security should be "fixed" so it can continue in its current form. I just want everyone to understand what it will take, and decide if they really want to put that burden on their children and grandchildren.
Any "fix" is doomed to fail, for the same reason that every other "fix" since Social Security was first created: the demographic trend is not favorable. We have to find a way to transition to an asset-based system like Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Chile. But, it's going to be painful, because during the transition both taxpayers and beneficiaries must bear an extra burden because previous generations were so short-sighted.