It still amazes me that the largest legalized Ponzi scheme on the planet exists and yet somehow people still believe that the money they pay into it is "their money." It isn't. What comes out of your paycheck is used to pay current Soc. Sec. recipients. Al Gore's nonsense notwithstanding, there is no lockbox with your money in it. The existing "fund" consists of nothing but IOUs from a government that cannot pay its bills. Dumb and Dumber was wrong: those are not just as good as money.
Let's use round numbers here. Assume you paid that maximum annual contribution to Soc. Sec. each year and your employer of course matched. That's around $20k/ year that you're effectively contributing; the business contribution simply reduces what your employer can pay you. Do this for 30 years and you've contributed $600k into the program.
Now let's also assume you retire at full retirement age, electing not to wait until 70 to maximize your monthly Soc. Sec. check. Currently, you're receive just over $4k/month. How many months at $4k/month does it take for you to get back the $600k you contributed to Soc. Sec? About 150 months, or 12.5 years. Each month you live beyond that means that you are collecting money that you never paid into it.
And what if you die the day after you retire? That $600k doesn't come to your family, your heirs, your estate. The government keeps what it took.
The number of retirees is growing faster than new employees are entering the workforce. Social Security is going to collapse at some point. To be fair, it's likely the federal government's budget will collapse before that happens just from the cost of servicing the growing debt.
And yet our politicians seem completely disconnected from this reality, focusing on how they can spend even more money (to buy votes, if we're being honest) instead of finding a way for this country to live within its means. So we've got that going for us, which is nice.
I started doing this math back when I was in high school, making markings on the cave walls. It was obvious where we were headed even back then, yet most are content to keep whistling past the graveyard. I shudder to think of their response when they discover how many lies they were fed.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Watching the Dems and the media- but I repeat myself- recoil like vampires from Crosses whenever any spending cuts/waste and fraud reduction is mentioned is one huge reason why a chainsaw is being taken to gov't expenditures.
Every tax cut is temporary unless a second law is passed making them permanent while every spending increase is righteous and wonderful and cutting it will starve/kill people. People are finally starting to tune it out.
Every bureaucracy views sustaining itself as its number one goal. Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy is always proven to be correct.
I'm starting to see some more "we're better than this" and "this is not who we are" and I'm gonna respond simply and use small words so as not to be misunderstood:
Fuck. Off.
I'll repeat: Fuck. Off.
Rather than rehash the same argument I've made many times over a long period of time, I'll just link to one of my previous rants and then add some extra stuff:
Some of you had met me IRL. I'm actually one of the go along to get along, don't make many waves kind of guy most of the time. And I have long since reached my limit of getting punched in the nuts while gasping "Thank you sir, may I have another?"
The number of you who refuse to get my point are either lacking in fundamental reading skills or you're being willfully obtuse. I'll clarify and type slowly and use small words so that maybe, just maybe, you'll understand.
1) There are a great many jobs that absolutely require you to be there in person. See also power generation, water filtration, sanitation, service industries, etc. Many of those are not located adjacent to residential areas. Therefore, if you wish to have one of those jobs, many of which are in fact high paying, you will have to commute some distance. That is a fact. You whining about this reality does not make it less true.
2) Many people move close to a job, love where they live, and then the job moves. At the nuclear plant in CT, the engineers used to work a distance from the site. One day, they decided to move the engineers to the site. Most of them loved their homes and did not want to move. Their commute was 90 minutes each way. Many of them carpooled to save wear and tear on themselves and their cars. Company I worked for moved an hour away right after I bought my house. I commuted. A lot of my coworkers moved closer to the new site and laughed at me for my commute. 1 year later the company went out of business. Shit happens.
10 billion for hookers
30 billion for blow
150 billion in pork spending
5 million for children's cancer research
5 million for hurricane disaster relief
Voters: This bill sucks.
Congress: WHY DO WANT PEOPLE TO REMAIN HOMELSS AND DIE OF CANCER?!
I have issues with AI, but using it speed read and summarize the garbage "we have to pass it to find out what's in it" mountains of paper spending bills is going to revolutionize how voters will impact votes.
Before, we'd usually find out about the hidden stink bombs after the spending started and became permanent. Now though? We can find out very shortly, before the bill gets voted on. And holy cow, are our Congress turds angry.
YOU MEAN THE PUBLIC GETS TO VOICE ITS OPINION? OUTRAGEOUS.
I was little when the abominable Roe was first decided. I grew up watching different administrations appointing different SCOTUS members and watched myriad suits wind their way up the court chain to try and get that poorly reasoned decision overturned.
Before Roe unilaterally said HUR DUR EMANATIONS PENUMBRAS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, abortion was working its way through 50 state populations, as each group of citizens tried to figure out what worked best for them.
Not so oddly, what people in CA and NY want and need differs greatly from people in, say, UT and MT. Anyway, the Roe decision short-circuited that and created a never ending fight.
Noah Rothman, who I actually like reading on occasion, is one of those Bush-era GOPers who absolutely refuse to acknowledge how/why Trump gained traction among voters. It actually beggars belief that he and those like him fail to grasp the simplicity of it all.
Yes, yes, I know their standard response: TEH VOTRZ IS TEH STOOPID
I'm sure that comments like that in no way angers the GOP voting base and increases their desire to stick a thumb in the eyes of their "betters".
I'll repeat: decades of GOP promising things during election season and then not only failing to do those things, refusing to even try to do them, is a huge reason for the rise in populism.