Are we asking Social Security to do too much?

Question

In 1935 when social security was set up, the average life expectancy was 61.7, and SS benefit was paid to those who retired at age 65. Shouldn't we either raise the retirement age to 81.2 (3.3 years past current life expectancy), or drop the net benefit? Or should we allow the federal government experience the same horrific, and departmentally crippling effects that have already been experienced by small American city's from the same paradigm with relation to their police and fire departments?

Lastly, in 1935 the first canned beer was produced, is it logical for me to levy a suit against Anheiser Busch because the can of Bud Light I just drank did not keep me drunk 20.7% longer than it would have made my great grand father?

After deeper annalysis, I realized it should be 20.7 TIMES (not percent) drunker than my grandfather... sorry for the initial miscalculation.

Answer 1

Well the tax a wage earner contributed to SSI was only 2% then also.
The trouble came with LBJ's Great Society program where he took the SSI fund and moved it into the general fund and also added medicare.
Then the Carter administration gave immigrants who had never paid into SSI eligiblity for benefits.
From there it the program was trying to play catch up ever since.

Answer 2

ive seen reports that there is millions of dollars of social security paid to individuals that realy dont need the money, they are very well off financially and just collect the payment because they are entitled to it, even though they have more money than they could ever spend!!!

i belive if they restructured the payment process and put a cap on the incomes of individuals like they do with medicaid it woul help out a lot!!

but it wont happen, and also they should not be able to use the money invested into it for any other purpose!!!

and if i were you i would just drink 20.7% more beer!!!

good luck with your lawsuit!!!

Answer 3

I'm asking that they close up shop. The Social[ist] [in]Security Administration is unconstitutional and is one of the greatest scams ever pulled on this country. There is absolutely no Security, the money goes into the general fund. There is no contract or guarentee, the system can be eliminated at anytime (too lazy to look up the court cite right now). You can get a better ROI from a basic savings account and the way it looks now stuffing money under a mattress will probably give a better ROI.
I don't think I'm asking too much.

Answer 4

i have paid into social security for my entire working life(41yrs). most of the places that i have worked for or retired from include social security as a part of their retirement plan along with 401k's or 403b's.

if social security will not be there for us, then that will hurt a lot of people.

i am 60. i can get a reduced amount at 62, more at 66, and the whole deal at 70.

did you ever try to a job at 55? it's impossible. so i will probably retire before 66. i have planned well. thank god.

Answer 5

Leave Social Security alone! It is one program that benefits everyone without regard to how rich you are or poor. It does however depend on a person working for a living in the case of most folks. Exceptions for the wealthy do not apply, for this you can thank God and FDR!

Answer 6

let's just take that iraqi oil, pump it, sell it, and put the money in the bank for the old folks

Answer 7

I guess we are....I mean seriously, why would we want them to give us back the money they've been stealing from us for 71 years?

I guess asking for accountability is asking for to much. Next question.

Answer 8

When people are given $12000 a year because
they are addicts and cant work. Somethings wrong.