Will our children pay for our Social Security, or balk?

The article in my link below is titled 'Carlo Ponzi, Alias Uncle Sam'. It was penned by Gary North, and it answers this question and more.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/10280.cfm

lsayre wrote:The article in my link below is titled 'Carlo Ponzi, Alias Uncle Sam'. It was penned by Gary North, and it answers this question and more.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/10280.cfm

Never read the article, don,t need to. They will do everthing in their power to not pay one red cent!!!!!!

Nothing wrong with S.S. if the esteem elected officials would have not been allowed to rape it, last I looked almost 4 trillion of our debt was owed to S.S., they looked at it as a cash cow that would never run out of money & never have to be paid back.

The article states that "The present value of the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is $222 trillion." That is far more than a case of mere government rape of an otherwise working system. That is purely the power of a Ponzi scheme system that was destined to fail from the very onset.

This Bloomberg article (link as seen below) confirms the $222 trillion figure, and informs us that the real deficit went up by $11 trillion last year alone. Most of the deficit is in off the books things, so only about $1.1 trillion of our new debt got officially reported last year. About 10% of reality.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/201 ... llion.html

The writer, Gary North, claims he hates Social Security and gives plenty of reasons why it should be abolished and he would be happy to see it discontinued.

Yet, he also receives Social Security and says that he will continue to cash the checks.

My questions:
1. If he hates it so much, why doesn't he refuse it.
2. If he is taking it because he "paid into the system", what about everyone else who has "paid into the system" don't they deserve to receive the checks also?
3. What's the word that begins with the letter H?

beemerboy wrote:The writer, Gary North, claims he hates Social Security and gives plenty of reasons why it should be abolished and he would be happy to see it discontinued.

Yet, he also receives Social Security and says that he will continue to cash the checks.

My questions:
1. If he hates it so much, why doesn't he refuse it.
2. If he is taking it because he "paid into the system", what about everyone else who has "paid into the system" don't they deserve to receive the checks also?
3. What's the word that begins with the letter H?

And this is why it will collapse. As Larry pointed out, we are underwater over $200 TRILLION just on that program. Then we can move to Medicare/Medicaid and the Defense budget plus the yearly operating budget.

The USA is bankrupt, we just haven't filed the paper work yet.

Where did you get the figure of $200 trillion dollars? The National debt is, what, $16 t? Where does that extra $184 trillion fit in?

I still say, if Mr North hates SS so much, why doesn't he stop taking it?

Gary North got it from Boston University Economics professor Laurence Kotlikoff. Watch and hear him speaking of this (plus read about it) at this link:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ti ... 16602.html

It has long been known that the government only reports a small portion of its actual debt. Prior to the 2008 crash I was hearing figures between $60 and $80 trillion. These figures came from the former Comptroller General of the United States, David M. Walker. Look him up. He was even featured in a movie titled 'I.O.U.S.A.' about the coming crash due to this, prior to its occurrence. It showed in theaters across the USA about 6 months before the big crash happened. He stepped down in order to tell the people of what was to come. While he was the Comptroller general he was being throttled and could not speak to the people.

beemerboy wrote:Where did you get the figure of $200 trillion dollars? The National debt is, what, $16 t? Where does that extra $184 trillion fit in?

I still say, if Mr North hates SS so much, why doesn't he stop taking it?

Because the government does what it would lock you up for. It keeps at least three sets of accounting books.

The $16 trillion is the "on book" debt. The rest is "off book".

Like Larry suggested, I'd recommend going to YouTube and finding the complete IOUSA movie.

How much did you think the space program really costs or for that matter a fully equipped nuke powered CA Carrier, not to mention the secret military bases that we hear rumored, CIA costs? There are lots of hidden programs that have their budgets hidden as well but some of those are taken out of known budgets.

Back when I was in high school (which wasn't that long ago) in government class the teacher was explaining how social security works, I remember pointing out its resemblance to a pyramid scheme. It works if and only if the next generation is larger than the last.

samhill wrote:How much did you think the space program really costs or for that matter a fully equipped nuke powered CA Carrier, not to mention the secret military bases that we hear rumored, CIA costs? There are lots of hidden programs that have their budgets hidden as well but some of those are taken out of known budgets.

Would the government allow you to do your accounting the way they do theirs?

carlherrnstein wrote:Back when I was in high school (which wasn't that long ago) in government class the teacher was explaining how social security works, I remember pointing out its resemblance to a pyramid scheme. It works if and only if the next generation is larger than the last.

And guess what?

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archiv ... r/10040802

U.S. births dropped 2% in 2008, bringing the country's birth rate below replacement level, new government statistics released Tuesday reveal.

The U.S. National Vital Statistics Report showed that the U.S. birth rate dropped in 2008 to 2.08 births per woman, below the 2.1 level needed to replace the population. The report indicates that the birth rate had surpassed replacement level for 2006 and 2007, after having been below replacement since 1972.

In 1945 there were 41.9 workers supporting each retiree via Social Security. In 2010 it was down to 2.9 workers supporting each retiree. And with zero to perhaps less than zero population growth and all of the baby boomers entering retirement age this trend will continue to get far worse.

And that doesn't include all the worthless pieces of s hit and illegals we are adding to the rolls to support forever.

Kevin