No, you said,"how poorly our government runs EVERYTHING it runs."
And I think it would be good to qualify the statement using the words "THIS government." All administrations hire party loyalists, but this one doesn't care if theirs are competent, it only cares if they are anti-abortion. And this administration and the 109th Republic Congress forgot about something called "auditing" and "accountability" to make sure programs were run efficiently. Instead, they cut the number of inspectors, auditors and regulators to save money. Ironic, no?
Read the SSA website, Marshall. It will NEVER run out of money. If NOTHING is done, it will pay out at current levels until about 2042, then it will STILL be able to pay out about 70-80% of planned levels. A small adjustment and it will pay full levels.
You are victim of the Republic spin. Social Security is NOT going broke.
How is 70-80% full levels? If it can't pay the way it's doing now, how is that successful? If adjustments have to be made (read: raise taxes), how is that successful? Who's doing the spinning? It's a pyramid based on more people paying in than collecting and it's exposed by the fact that now we're entering a period where those paying in are being outnumbered by those receiving payments. Yeah, that's working really well.
Marshall, this thread started on government running programs efficiently. A 1% overhead is pretty darned efficient regardless of how you feel about the program itself.
I didn't claim that 70-80% is full levels. I said that without changing anything, the program will pay out at these levels and with tweaking it could pay out full planned levels.
Doesn't have to be raising taxes. Could easily be moving the retirement age.
This is all in the SSA's own website. Please feel free to read and educate yourself on the subject.
I have a quicker solution, PRIVATIZE! That way I get what I save from my earnings. You want to mooch, you have to get a Socialist Congress to agree with you.
My first statement was in error for sure. But still, what's efficient about an organization that can only fulfill 70-80% of it's promise? Raising taxes or making those expecting to retire have to work longer isn't fulfilling the promise either. What happens if they try to keep the promise without tweaking? That's the measure of effectiveness.
11 comments:
Isn't it nice to know that someone is finally looking after YOUR money?
Read about it.
I think it is flat out amazing how poorly our government runs EVERYTHING it runs. Katrina aid was almost 100 PERCENT WASTED...
more proof that we should lower taxes and cut the hell out of social programs...since the waste in that area is just as bad, if not worse
Actually, the Social Security Administration is one of the best run organizations in the country. Their overhead is 1% of Social Security revenues.
I said social programs...social security is not really a social program, it is more like a forced retirement program...
No, you said,"how poorly our government runs EVERYTHING it runs."
And I think it would be good to qualify the statement using the words "THIS government." All administrations hire party loyalists, but this one doesn't care if theirs are competent, it only cares if they are anti-abortion. And this administration and the 109th Republic Congress forgot about something called "auditing" and "accountability" to make sure programs were run efficiently. Instead, they cut the number of inspectors, auditors and regulators to save money. Ironic, no?
If SS is run so well, Jim, why is that for decades we've been warned that it'll run out of money?
Read the SSA website, Marshall. It will NEVER run out of money. If NOTHING is done, it will pay out at current levels until about 2042, then it will STILL be able to pay out about 70-80% of planned levels. A small adjustment and it will pay full levels.
You are victim of the Republic spin. Social Security is NOT going broke.
How is 70-80% full levels? If it can't pay the way it's doing now, how is that successful? If adjustments have to be made (read: raise taxes), how is that successful? Who's doing the spinning? It's a pyramid based on more people paying in than collecting and it's exposed by the fact that now we're entering a period where those paying in are being outnumbered by those receiving payments. Yeah, that's working really well.
Marshall, this thread started on government running programs efficiently. A 1% overhead is pretty darned efficient regardless of how you feel about the program itself.
I didn't claim that 70-80% is full levels. I said that without changing anything, the program will pay out at these levels and with tweaking it could pay out full planned levels.
Doesn't have to be raising taxes. Could easily be moving the retirement age.
This is all in the SSA's own website. Please feel free to read and educate yourself on the subject.
Jim,
I have a quicker solution, PRIVATIZE! That way I get what I save from my earnings. You want to mooch, you have to get a Socialist Congress to agree with you.
Jim,
My first statement was in error for sure. But still, what's efficient about an organization that can only fulfill 70-80% of it's promise? Raising taxes or making those expecting to retire have to work longer isn't fulfilling the promise either. What happens if they try to keep the promise without tweaking? That's the measure of effectiveness.
Post a Comment