No. of Recommendations: 9
This analysis, so popular with wingnuts, always ignores the disability insurance that Social Security provides each and every year of the recipients life - and that once that is figured in, the "discrepancy" completely disappears.

You mean the disability program that currently being abused and defrauded by millions, and is on the road to insolvency? That one?

Anyone with a functioning brain and the least bit of memory of how Obamacare 'drove down costs' while 'letting us keep our doctors' (snork!) will understand that any projections from the Government are far rosier than reality. The fact that the Government itself is admitting insolvency tells us in the thinking universe that they've known this for a while, and are just getting around to telling us.

It's hard to know whether that omission is deliberately dishonest, or just sheer ignorance, but since it has been debunked dozens, if not hundreds of times on these very boards, I'm going to go with "dishonest."

Wow - 'these very boards'. You sound almost stately and regal. I guess Time Magazine didn't get the memo: I don't think Time is that great in terms of honesty and accountability, frankly, but they're enough to blow you out of the water. Your bloviations are just that - hot air with no substance. A fact-free reality. But that's okay, just go along with what the voices in your head tell you. It's safer that way.

Here's reality: every first world country on the planet has some form of Social Security, nearly always a government program which transfers from the working population to the elderly and with near universal participation. Nearly every third world country on the planet does not.

Logical FAIL. Countries became First World and *then* do-gooders decided that they knew how to spend other people's money better. Turns out they can't, but that won't stop them. You don't really understand logic, do you?

The "reality" that the program inspires seems to be dishonesty, ignorance, or mental illness on the part of those who refuse to see "reality". EOM.

I couldn't agree more. People like you, for instance, will argue that any paltry return from SS is 'risk free', because you don't have to invest. Well, any such return is only 'risk free' if you don't understand the word 'risk'. There is the slight issue of 'insolvency', which is what happens when people are taking out at a faster rate than they are putting in. Oopsie! So, it's a *guarantee* that either we'll have to raise taxes, cut benefits, or a combination. But no risk, there, right? I suppose in your world, it isn't risky if it was designed to fail, like every other social program.
Print the post  


The Retirement Investing Board
This is the board for all discussions related to Investing for and during retirement. To keep the board relevant and Foolish to everyone, please avoid making any posts pertaining to political partisanship. Fool on and Retire on!
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.