Why do politicians want social security to end?

Question

As every non corrupted mind knows, Social security will be just fine if just left alone. If you beg to differ, please read these articles and then tell me you have not been fed a lie from politicians.
http://www.aarpmagazine.org/money/Articles/myths_and_truths_about_social_security.html
http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=507
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/RetirementandWills/CreateaPlan/5mythsAboutSocialSecurity.aspx

Allrighty. now what i want to know, is why do politicians want to end ss? Is it all about the money that they would get in return?
Please people, keep your answers educated..

thanks for all the info everyone, I'll get all the facts straight sooner or later. :)

Answer 1

I'm only going to make a guess.

They don't want it to end, but they do want to appear to be strong about fixing it, and making people responsible. But in the end, it's all smoke and mirrors to make themselves look strong based on polling numbers.

Peace

Jim

.

Answer 2

Just read the articles carefully and concentrate on the facts:
- None of them denies the fact that, in present form, SS will need to be eventially supplemented by taxes. (0.7% of GDP from the start is a lot of money, and then the articles fail to mention that it's going to be downhill from there). Whether the date is 2042 or 2052 or 20x2 is immaterial.
- The big problem that I see is that NONE of the predictions take dollar devaluation into the account. With today's trends, the promised $1000 in benefits may be equivalent to buying power of today's $1 in 2052. No return on government bonds will ever compensate for that.
- The stated figure of 3.57% of real return on investment is not only laughable by any measure, it does not include the fact that half of the payments are made by the employer.

Answer 3

Save for a few minor details, however, the quote from President Dwight D. Eisenhower cited at the head of this page is in fact an accurate one. It wasn't something he uttered (it was instead something he wrote), and the version reproduced above omits Ike's reference to a specific Texas oil tycoon (H.L. Hunt), but it otherwise is taken verbatim from a letter President Eisenhower penned to his brother, Edgar Newton Eisenhower, on 8 November 1954:
--------------------
Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/ike.asp

Answer 4

Do you realize that FDR believed that there would be no further need for Social Security after the 1960s? Social Security was *never* intended to be anything besides a small supplement to the money which every frugal worker was expected to save on his own initiative for his retirement years.

Many potential wage earners were murdered in the womb. With all the Baby Boomers reaching retirement age, the number of working people paying into Social Security will have to pay a lot higher percentage of their wages into FICA in order to support these retirees! If some of the current wage earners were allowed to divert a portion of this money into stock market investments, they would not need to be dependent on SSA payments to live off of when they retire!

Answer 5

Your statement is the most asinine, stupid, uninformed nonsense to grace Y/A. Social Security is a pyramid scheme. It works only as long as it takes in more money than it pays out. Starting next year, it no longer will take in more than it pays out and the government will have to redeem the IOU's that they euphemistically call a "trust fund." In order to meet the payout requirements, they will have to borrow from general revenues (tax receipts). The system is broke and is not sustainable. The generosity of Congress in allowing the older generations to suck the system dry by returning them everything they paid in within the first 18 months to 2 years after they began collecting benefits was patently wrong. Their (the older generations) irresponsibility in not preparing for their own financial well being has now been passed on to the future generations. The best thing to do with Social Security is to end it and get the government out of the retirement business, a business that it should have never been in to begin with.

When I turned 50 years old, I received a propaganda package from AARP. I immediately called them and asked to be removed from their mailing list. I consider them the most dangerous domestic terrorist organization in the United States. I look upon them and those who become members with total disgust and absolute disdain.

Edit:

everymansmedium: If you think there is a pool of money that politicans want to get their hands on, you are greviously uninformed. That pool of money known as the "trust fund" is nothing but a collection of IOU's, that money spend long ago.

Answer 6

My educated mind tells me that yours is corrupted. Why on earth would you believe that 75 per cent funded is good enough. Why on earth would you accept a 2 per cent or less return . There are no politicians that I know that want to end SS. If they are, they are invisible. There are some that would like to add some choice to it and some privatization essentially to save it. When people get money they didn't earn, someone has to pay for it. When the government promises things they can't pay for someone has to. There really is not a giant pie in the sky.

Answer 7

Social Security is not an entitlement its a tax the case of

Flemming v Nester proves that the government is lying to you and one day you will wake up and everything you put into social security will be G O N E gone

AARP is a bunch of crooks they are the mouth piece of the SS lie


Pyramid scheem or more of a Ponzi scheme

Answer 8

whilst Liberals communicate it relatively is intimidation and worry they use as their approach, in accordance to the Alinsky policies for Radicals, to curve issues around to make it look like the oppositions, (enemies approach). surely that's the liberals who could bankrupt this usa into no longer having Social protection or Medicare. What you have been advised is undesirable technology fiction. The modern liberals will persist in each and every way obtainable to discredit every person who does no longer pass alongside with their schedule. MR

Answer 9

There is a large pool of money that they want to get their hands on. There is no magic reason. They claim that it will not last when the boomers arrive. They claim that it will be necessary to subsidise it via increased taxation on the new individuals and their employers.
This as you already know by the above links is not the case. So what else is there?
It is a large pool of money that is making their hands itch.

Answer 10

despite your articles I harbor the belief that its fiscally broken. Promised too much and there wont be enough to pay. Many people I know dont even factor it in when they contemplate retirement.