MK said:
The US will probably push the age at which people receive social security benefits to 70 or later , that would take care of the so-called ponzi scheme. As far as Rand Paul is concerned, he is a crazy little punk and once people realize how deranged he is it will be over. People in Kentucky do not want to eliminate the Department of Agriculture. Yes, other government benefits will be cut as time passes because the money won't be there. when social security was first implemented in the 1930s, 65 was chosen as the age to receive benefits because most people didnt' live long past 65. But on the other had I don't think too many baby boomers are actually counting on government benefits to retire on.My response:
Thank you for your email.
"So called Ponzi Scheme". It seems you are dismissing Social Security and Medicare as Ponzi Schemes while saying the cure for the Ponzi scheme is to STIFF the people that paid into the Ponzi Scheme by changing the rules by which you accepted their money.... Is that correct? If so, isn't that the definition of a Ponzi Scheme (no qualifying "so called" required)?
Of course the government is going to raise the age for the benefits! But not before confiscating the nearly $500k I have paid into the program during my working years (90% of my career I was self-employed and paid both employee and employer contributions) and distributing that money to people that did not pay in what they are taking out. What choice do they have? Lower the monthly cash payment or raise the age! Since we don't live forever... average age for a man is, what, 77.5? So they just stiffed me for 40%? That's not a "so called Ponzi scheme"... that's a JACK.
Rand Paul is a "crazy little punk"? And the people of Kentucky what? The man ran for the nomination against TPTB of the Republican party and WON. Get a grip. The man is the next junior Senator from Kentucky, and there will likely be 3 or 4 other Senator's raising their right hands next January that come from his political base.
As for Social Security and the average Life expectancy in 1935... Here is a link to the Wikipedia entry on what is commonly called "Social Security". Please read it! Your suppositions are ALL F&^%%ED UP! While it is true that Life expectancy at that time was lower than today, the percentage and the cap for the program have been moving steadily up to the point of crushing employment here in the U.S.!! The introduction of Medicare and health insurance in general did more to incite the explosion of health care costs than anything else that could have possibly been done. A doctor's fee for a non-complicated baby delivery in the year Medicare was enacted was about $35. Today it is about $4,000, over 100X while general inflation was 10X... Congratulations! Wanna see me do the same trick for college tuition and Sallie Mae? Home prices and Fannie Mae?
The fact of the matter is that the unintended consequences of ALL OF THESE PROGRAMS were a F&^*ing DISASTER for the U.S., and while the programs did benefit a small percentage of the population, they did so at the expense of everyone else while creating grossly outrageous expectations - expectations that will not be met under any circumstances. Worse, the moral hazard - not saving and providing for one's old age - created by the jag-offs that enacted all of these programs will find the jag-offs in question BLAMING the folks that resisted this drek in the first place!
Both the Left and the Right, the two-headed-single-party that has been ripping us off for several generations are TERRIFIED that they might lose their grip.
I ask you: Can Rand Paul be ANY WORSE than the jerks now running the train set? What have we got to lose??!!