@ThePainefulTruth Said 
Exactly. He never expected it to pass. He just wants to make Republicans look anti-jobs. That would probably have worked 3 years ago.
Yeah, fine, if you have an infinite population. See what Obama's done, he's got his people sunk so low they're defending Ponzi schemes.
Since social security is time based, you do have an infinite population into the future. Sure, at some point the world will end, but then social security and ponzi schemes will be the last of your worries.
@fractal7221 Said
If its not a ponzi scheme why not let people opt-out of Social Security and give back all the money placed into the system?
Typically ponzi schemes are opt-in, not opt-out.
Why would we let people money get out what they put in? People pay the SS tax, it is used to buy US treasuries with a long maturity. If you buy a bond from a company (or the government), you can't go to the company whenever you like and demand your money back. You entered into a contract to lend the money for a particular length of time, if you want to get out you need to sell your interest in it. Now tell me, who exactly is going to buy a few trillion worth of US treasuries in order to fund early redemptions? You'll end up with a market glut, so the prices of the bonds will plummet. There's no way that's workable.
Quote:
The fact is there is no money, its all been spent. Some group is going to get massively screwed by the broken social security system.
If a bank makes a loan to someone does that mean there's no money and the bank will never get paid back? Not at all.
Quote:
Either the young workers of today and the coming years are going to face massive tax increases to support the retiring boomer generation or the boomers are going to get back far less than they put in.
Social Security is 100% solvent for at least another 26 years. Medicare is another matter.
@hoppy Said
The justification for President Obama's new proposed tax on the wealthy is wrong on the numbers. Despite the president's claims, millionaires don't pay lower tax rates than middle class workers.
Yeah, if you exclude payroll taxes. But why on earth would you exclude those? Oh yeah, because it makes a convenient point to ignore the reality of how much people actually pay in taxes, because the rich only pay them on a small portion of their income. Why should we care about anything other than the effective tax rate? A hypothetical federal income tax rate is nonsense.
Quote:
His proposed surcharge on capital gains and dividend taxes will raise already high tax rates on high income individuals and force even more investment outside the United States. The so-called "Buffett rule" is based on Warren Buffett's claim:
Read more: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/19/obama-gets-numbers-wrong-in-his-tax-plan/#ixzz1YRF7FEig
Well, if you want to only count federal income taxes as tax and exclude payroll taxes, then you might as well not count capital gains taxes as taxes either. In which case, Buffet's income tax rate was near zero.
Sep 20, 2011 @ 23:10:44
