Originally Posted by
jungle
May I suggest you do a little reading on the history of SS? What it started as and what it mutated into are two different animals. What some bought into has had the terms changed so often that it has become a huge shell game.
Madoff couldn't create something from nothing, and guess what, neither can any other individual or entity.
In the end, if we wish to create charities, and lets face it these programs are just that-why not focus on the needy? Unless of course you start with the assumption that everyone is needy, which would bring us to our present situation.
Where it comes from is irrelevant. Are you claiming that what I said it is now is wrong? You pay in, a portion goes into a government bond trust fund for the time when people paying can't meet the pay out obligations, and the rest goes to old people. Where is the government covering this up and playing a shell game? They are perfectly honest in when they think the trust fund has to start paying and when the trust fund will run out (and they will still meet 76% of their obligation if we do nothing). Social Security tax is taken from you and no longer becomes your money. There is no promise to give it back, or provide you a return or even give you Social Security payments in the future.
If you gave someone the option of not paying for Social Security, you'd have to tax them (or borrow it in Bush's solution) the same amount to pay for those currently receiving it. For what it's worth, I liked Bush's plan and disliked the slippery slope smear campaign that was played on that just as much as I dislike the smear campaign on health care reform now.
As far as whether it's a charity or not is a tangent. I'm proving the point that it's different than Madoff because it's wide open for anyone to see.