“Yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God a service” (John 16:2).
The Demise of SOCIAL SECURITY
By de Andréa, Opinion Editorialist
for ‘THE BOTTOM LINE’:
for ‘THE BOTTOM LINE’:
Published August 02, 2015
Social Security is known as the "third rail" of politics because of how politically sensitive it is. Democrats accuse Republicans of trying to take away your Social Security every campaign cycle, when the truth is Democrats have been plundering it sense its inception.But what politicians don't tell you is that Social Security cuts are going to come because it is headed towards insolvency. Fast. Find out why!
Myra Adams writes in National Review that she found an asterisk in her Social Security statement that said the following:
“ *The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2033, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 77 percent of scheduled benefits.”
Adams then looked through some past Social Security statements and found one from March 2009, which also had an asterisk that said:
*The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2039, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 78 percent of your scheduled benefits.”
In a six-year span,the Social Security Administration became significantly more pessimistic about the program's future. What will Social Security look like in the next six years?
A brief history of the program: In "The New Ameritopia," Mark Levin writes that the structure of Social Security origionally came from a man named Henry Seager, a former professor at Columbia University. The SSA even provides links to each chapter of Seager's book, "Social Insurance: A Program of Social Reform," calling Seager's book a "classic" and that Seager's view was "general viewpoint favored by many of the founders of Social Security in America."
This is what Seager wrote in his first chapter: (emphasis mine) “It is the purpose of these lectures to insist that for other great sections of the country- sections in which manufacturing and trade have become the dominant interests of the people, in which towns and cities have grown up, and in which the wage earner is the typical American citizen- the simple creed of individualism is no longer adequate. For these sections we need not freedom from governmental interference, but clear appreciation of the conditions that make for the common welfare, as contrasted with individual success, and an aggressive program of governmental control and regulation to maintain these conditions.”
The whole point of social insurance then, to Seager, is all about sticking it to individual liberty and putting more control in the hands of big government.
Social Security was signed into law in 1935, despite all the public opposition to socialized guaranteed minimum income.
Resonant of the recent Supreme Court decision on Obama Care, FDR sold Social Security to the public as social insurance, but his administration argued to the Supreme Court that it was a tax, Just as Obomacare, an argument the court bought hook, line and sinker. The payroll tax, which was never intended to create your Social Security fund account, is in fact a regressive tax. As a matter of fact there never has been a Social Security Trust Fund, as it was sold to the public.
Side note: Years ago I did the math on what would have happened if Social Security had actually been handled in a Capitalistic way instead of a socialistic way. If there actually had been an invested account, untouchable by congress and all the political elites, to day each retiree would receive an average of 68 thousand per year and it would no longer be necessary to collect payroll taxes on it, because the trust fund would have been so wealthy that it would have been self-funding by now.
But it was all about politics to FDR: (emphasis mine) As Mark Levin notes, “Roosevelt was emphatic that these taxes had nothing to do with the program’s economic viability or lack thereof. They were, as FDR said, “politics all the way through, “enacted “to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits.” Even if the numbers did not add up, the universal sense of entitlement fostered by framing assessments as contributions rather than taxes assured that “no damn politician can ever scrap my Social Security program,” as FDR presciently put it.”
That is what Social Security has all been about: politics. It was all about gaining and maintaining control for the social progressives.
Because the court ruled Social Security as a tax, the payroll tax does not in fact fund your own Social Security. It is instead like any other social program, is a pay-as-you-go program where the younger generation (us) funds the older generation, resulting in a demographics problem in driving up Social Security's deficit.
In addition to that, the Social Security fund has also been raided by politicians for years to pay for their own pet programs with the promise to pay it back. Think, think America, just how were the politicians going to pay it back? With more of your money! This would be known as a Ponzi scheme in the private sector. (But that isn’t the only reason that Social security is going broke.)
As a result, Social Security currently faces $22 trillion in unfunded liabilities and is expected to be insolvent in 2033, hence this is why the asterisk on Adams's Social Security statement said that her benefits would be reduced in 2033. And this is only for the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund. The Social Security Disability Insurance Trust Fund runs out of money by the end of next year.
By 2039, the cost of Social Security and other entitlement programs will require more than 100% of our payroll tax dollars- and that's a conservative estimate.
For all the fear-mongering about Republicans taking away Social Security, the cuts will happen on their own because there won't be a Social Security program by 2033.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Earlier I mentioned that the pilfering of Congress of the so-called social security trust fund isn’t the only reason that Social security is going broke. You see by 2033 there will be more people on Social Security than are working to pay for it.
How did this happen why are there going to be more old people than working young people? Well! One very obvious reason is that we will have approximately 70 million less people in the work force population than we should have. Today’, more than 60 million young people have been murdered in America, by the U.S. Government, by 2033 there will be more than 70 million young Americans murdered. No! Not in a war! Not in the conventional sense anyway.
ABORTION, my friend. And this doesn’t account for the fact the most of those 70 million young people would have grown up and procreated to conservatively more than 200 million - young – working - people paying Social Security Tax for the rest of us old farts.
God will punish us for our irresponsibility and selfishness, but we brought this one on ourselves.
And this is just the beginning of the demise of America my friend…stay tuned to learn who and what is behind all of this.
Thanks for listening – de Andréa
Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list. It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.
Copyright © 2014 by Bottom Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved - Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Disclaimer - The writer of this blog is not responsible for the language or advertisements used in links to referenced articles as source materials.