# Republicans: How would you reduce America's jobless rate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 7, 2010, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352 "2010-06-07T22:30:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/221 "2010-06-15T00:02:46Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > Sorry, a lot of the country thinks the viewpoints by Cato and Heritage and other sources are very credible. Oh, yes, the “lot of the country” that _likes_ to be told government is bad. Doesn’t make it any more honest or thoughtful, though. > [@](#): > > Analogously, the slowdown in population growth puts pressure on Social Security finances. Of course. But the key feature of a Ponzi scheme is that it is inherently doomed to collapse by its very nature. You keep using the term as if it were true of SS as well. It is not, and to continue to suggest otherwise is as juvenile as it is false. > [@](#): > > Although a pay-as-you-go system can in fact work, that only makes sense when the population and demographics (or more accurately, relationship to those contributing and those drawing) remains stable. Wrong again. That’s only true if you never take any action to adjust rates on either income or payment ends to keep the cash flow in balance. Why would you expect never to make any changes? That’s just silly. ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/222 "2010-06-15T00:15:11Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > Did you not see my earlier post, that SS is now paying out more money than it’s taking in? That there is no pile of cash it’s sitting on - they hold gimmicky special T bills that only serve to keep score; the ‘extra’ money that is supposed to be stashed to pay for future retirees goes right out the door in today’s expenditures. > > This is completely different than the way a private insurance company would work; they maintain cash reserves and other resources (equities, etc) to both generate future rev and to pay claims. > > You don’t seem dumb; can you really not see the difference here? And did you not see this post [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12573811&postcount=163](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12573811&postcount=163) and earlier posts where I explained that SS can continue paying out benefits at a high level for the next 75 years (that’s as long as anybody like the CBO, SS trustees etc. ever do projections for) even with zero changes made to its current structure? I know there’ll be more retirees and less workers but the guys who do the projections know that too and SS cost is projected to jump around 1% of GDP in a decade or so and then stay at that level for the next sixty odd years, see graph : [http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/2009/20090512-MedicareHospitalTrust\_files/image002.gif](http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/2009/20090512-MedicareHospitalTrust_files/image002.gif) So while we’ll have to make modest changes in benefits and payments to cover that increase SS will still provide the backbone of the nation’s retirement security for generations and an ever-increasing number of future workers will only have to fund a constant level of revenue for future retirees. SS is currently paying out more than it’s taking in but that’s because we’re in a recession with high unemployment and so revenues have dropped. Absent the recession SS would still be taking in more than it’s paying out for around another decade. US bonds aren’t gimmicky, they’re backed by the full faith and credit of the US government and are the safest investment on the planet. They’re in a trust fund with all the legal guarantees that gives the money and the trustees have the obligation to redeem those bonds as and when needed to pay benefits. The US government will not default on its debt. ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/223 "2010-06-15T00:18:47Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Problem is that it’s easier said than done. When you throw politics and public opinion into the mix, you turn what should be a simple accounting problem into a huge shitstorm. Oh yeah it’s going to be a bugger to fix. The medical-industrial complex isn’t going to go down without a fight. It’s going to take the bond markets demanding double digit and increasing yields to concentrate the politicians’ minds. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/224 "2010-06-15T02:58:49Z")
Look, this thread is getting thoroughly hijacked – my fault, in part – so let’s take the Social Security = Ponzi scheme debate to [this thread,](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=567194) and let’s get the instant thread back on Republican ideas to reduce the jobless rate. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/225 "2010-06-15T03:26:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Look, this thread is getting thoroughly hijacked – my fault, in part – so let’s take the Social Security = Ponzi scheme debate to [this thread,](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=567194) and let’s get the instant thread back on Republican ideas to reduce the jobless rate. I agree, but I would argue it’s completely relevant. If you want to increase the employed, you need to reduce the cost of employment to employers. FICA and Medicare are 15% right off the top. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/226 "2010-06-15T03:59:00Z")
What makes you think so? The populist patriotism of the American businessman, his unwavering commitment to the American working man? “Gee, let’s see, fifteen percent savings. Could plow that into further hirings, which would be a good thing to do for my fellow Americans, and honor my duty as a citizen. Or, I could turn it into a dividend for our shareholders, and then our Board will reward me with a gazillion dollars, a private jet, and a solid gold douche nozzle. Boy, that’s a tough one…Ponder, ponder…” ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/227 "2010-06-15T05:29:02Z")
> [@erez](#): > > Why don’t you spend 20 seconds googling and find the FDA’s letter that the article mentions? Mostly because I find it unexpectedly odd that you’d go to the trouble of supplying a cite that’s so close to being content free. Y’know, a worthless cite is as bad as no cite at all. > [@](#): > > It looks like the main reason that the FDA thinks that such genetic tests fall under its regulatory powers is because the law (21 U.S.C. 321h) lets them regulate instruments “intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions.” It seems a stretch to me but whether or not it was the Congress or the FDA that made the decision is not an important difference here. It is still an example of unnecessary government interference, this time with people learning about their own genes. I doubt such interference will have a positive long-term effect on the prices of these tests or their general availability. You seem to have reading issues. Since you still can’t be arsed to provide a decent cite, from [their PDF to 23andMe](http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/ResourcesforYou/Industry/UCM215240.pdf) (available with others at [the FDA site](http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/InVitroDiagnostics/default.htm)): > [@](#): > > In 1976, Congress enacted the Medical Device Amendments (MDA), which amended the Act to provide for premarket regulation of medical devices intended for use in humans. This premarket review of medical devices enables FDA to protect the public from medical products that may pose an unreasonable risk of harm. It is important that they be analytically and clinically accurate so that individuals are not misled by incorrect test results or unsupported clinical interpretations. Premarket review allows for an independent and unbiased assessment of a diagnostic test’s ability to generate test results that can reliably be used to support good healthcare decisions. > > 23andMe has never submitted information on the analytical or clinical validity of its tests to FDA for clearance or approval. However, your website states that the 23andMe Personal Genome ServiceTMis intended to tell patients in advance how they will respond to certain medications including warfarin and clopidogrel. It also states that the data generated from the 23andMe Odds Calculator, a feature ofthe 23andMe personal Genome ServiceTM, includes the contribution of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to disease risk. Consumers may make medical decisions in reliance on this information. This seems directly in line with their mission to me. Note that I’m fully aware that one (well, you, in particular) may not agree with the existence of the FDA, much less its purview. However, given that the FDA currently exists and is fulfilling its purpose by regulating medical devices, I feel justified in characterizing your complaints as “libertarian weenie-whining” in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/228 "2010-06-15T14:52:34Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > Pension funds are protected through ERISA and PBGC. They are subject to a lot of regulation and are supposed to be funded sufficiently to handle claims. > > Would you say that Social Security is being managed to those standards? Would you say that the US has taken the necessary steps to ensure the health of SS? Would you say they have the political will to make the changes soon enough that they don’t become draconian? Let me remind you what you said: “If it’s a pension, then you CANNOT make those kinds of changes that will be required to save it.” But the PBGC does in fact change pension benefits. SS is not really like a pension and American pensions are not really like Eurpopean pensions. If you are trying to hammer home the fact that SS is not fully fuinded then I would sday that youa re missing the point. I have not seen anyone argue taht ss is fully funded, merely that it is and can reamin solvent over the long term (perhaps with some fiddling around the edges). The question of whether of not ss is a good idea is subject to debate. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/229 "2010-06-15T14:55:51Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Oh, yes, the “lot of the country” that _likes_ to be told government is bad. Doesn’t make it any more honest or thoughtful, though. > > . Well, here’s the thing. From where I sit, you don’t get to be the universal arbiter of what’s honest or thoughtful. (I notice you didn’t respond to my HuffPo cite, calling SS… wait for it… … a Ponzi Scheme). ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/230 "2010-06-15T14:57:18Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > You couldn’t be more wrong. The Social Security trust fund is NOT invested as it would be by private insurance companies. It is [invested](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund) in ‘special’ government bonds that pay 5.5% interest, and will need to be redeemed by… the government. This ‘investment’ is not stored or stashed or put to work in equities or money markets; it is ‘invested’ by being spent immediately (which serves to cloud the brutal deficit levels and make our wimp politicians even more willing to spend with borrowed money). > > Since you won’t listen to me, maybe you’ll listen to wiki > > Which would you say has happened? By that rationale, government bonds are not investments. You (and apparently Wikipedia) are getting confused by the fact that the obligor on the investment is also the obligor on the ss benefit but unless you are trying to say that treasuries (granted a special form of treasury bond that can only be issued to the SS fund but one that is backed by the full faith and credit of teh United States in any event) are not investments. In fact if you check the general accounts and reserve accounts of insurance companies, they frequently carry quite a bit of treasury securities. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/231 "2010-06-15T15:06:01Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Let me remind you what you said: “If it’s a pension, then you CANNOT make those kinds of changes that will be required to save it.” > > But the PBGC does in fact change pension benefits. > > SS is not really like a pension and American pensions are not really like Eurpopean pensions. If you are trying to hammer home the fact that SS is not fully fuinded then I would sday that youa re missing the point. I have not seen anyone argue taht ss is fully funded, merely that it is and can reamin solvent over the long term (perhaps with some fiddling around the edges). > > The question of whether of not ss is a good idea is subject to debate. I’m not going to argue whether SS is a good idea or not. I think that reality has overtaken that discussion, and it won’t be eliminated in my, my kids’ or even their kids’ lifetimes. So the question is moot (as opposed to this debate, which gets so many results in the real world :rolleyes: ) You are right that PBGC mods pensions when they take over. And you are right that SS is underfunded. I’d argue that we (US politicians, and those who elect them) haven’t shown the political will, and certainly none’s coming from this trainwreck administration, to make the painful changes necessary so that the country isn’t Greece when the boomers retire and the bill comes due. There is a huge imbalance coming (indeed, already here) between poorer workers paying into the system and wealthier retirees drawing from it (ie, the similarities to a Ponzi Scheme). This is not subject to debate, it’s simply a fact. But back to the other point, the one I think you understand and the others on this thread clearly don’t: If you view this as a pension scheme, then it’s something like a contract; people put their contributions in and then take them out later according to some schedule. Modifying that contract would be a breach of trust between the feds and citizens. Yes PBGC does mod pensions, but only after the entire company has gone bankrupt and is disintegrated… I’m assuming you don’t forsee that for the US :eek: If you view it as an entitlement, then there’s far less of a connection between what you contribute and what you get out - just hit 65 or whatever retirement age and you get your check. The problem is that people can’t decide which. If one suggests increasing the amount of benefits subject to taxation, or raising the earnings ceiling subject to FICA, or reducing the payouts either through less money or delayed retirement age, then the pension people will scream bloody murder. But those are exactly the moves you need to make if you think it’s an entitlement. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/232 "2010-06-15T15:22:07Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > Well, here’s the thing. From where I sit, you don’t get to be the universal arbiter of what’s honest or thoughtful. Poor dear, stuck without an argument. > [@](#): > > (I notice you didn’t respond to my HuffPo cite Because it has even less content or credibility than your Cato “cite”. Do you think you’re scoring a point of some kind there? ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/233 "2010-06-15T15:29:27Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > There is a huge imbalance coming (indeed, already here) between poorer workers paying into the system and wealthier retirees drawing from it (ie, the similarities to a Ponzi Scheme). This is not subject to debate, it’s simply a fact. You haven’t replied to my last two or three posts and I’m not expecting a reply to this one but let’s take this at face value. Let’s say that in 2040 SS can only meet 75% of current benefits. The CBO say it can make 83% after 2044 but let’s be conservative with the projection. If SS can meet 3/4 of promised benefits with the existing tax, it could meet 4/4 of promised benefits with a 33% tax increase. The current SS tax level is 6.2% of payroll. 33% of 6.2 is 2.1. So a 2% raise in the payroll tax would enable SS to meet all promised benefits. Current average income is 700 dollars per week. 2% of 700 is 14 dollars. For a low wage worker, the tax increase would be about 7 dollars per week. Projected average income in 2040 is 1000 dollars per week in 2010 dollars. 2% of 1000 is 20 dollars per week. So Social Security can be “saved” by a 20 dollar increase in tax in 2040 on an income that has increased by 300 dollars in real terms by the time the raise is needed. The reason the raise will be needed is to pay for the six extra years of life expectancy those future tax payers will have compared to us. The 20 dollar raise will preserve their benefits at current replacement value and allow them to retire at the normal age with a benefit indexed to a 2040 standard of living. [![](https://farm5.static.flickr.com/4024/4702942839_1dc7fea0bc.jpg) ](https://farm5.static.flickr.com/4024/4702942839_1dc7fea0bc.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/234 "2010-06-15T15:33:45Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > It is absolutely wealth distribution. It is absolutely an entitlement. Fine, how does taht advance your point? > [@](#): > > An earlier poster stated that there were $2 trillion of ‘reserves’ in the program. That is the language that real pension funds, annuities and retirement funds use to describe their condition. > > But there is no such thing in SS. There are no reserves. That is a fraud. So you haven’t heard of the social security trust fund?n It holds US treasuries. If you don’t think US treasuries are real assets then i really don’t know what to say. > [@](#): > > The hell it isn’t. There are no ‘reserves’. Once again are you not familiar with teh social security trust fund? > [@](#): > > You asked above what I would do to transition off SS. I’ve offered one suggestion here, and in other threads. Here it is… > > I’ve contributed somewhere in the ballpark of $200,000 in cumulative, nominal dollars over my employment lifetime to SS > > Here’s my offer…don’t pay me anything when I retire. You don’t owe me anything. That 200 grand I contributed was a gift. Take whatever part of that $109 trillion liability that has my name on it, and write it off. You don’t owe that to me. You don’t have to pay me a cent. > > Just don’t take any more of my money via FICA with-holding, from here on out. I’ll negotiate whatever I can from my employer from that 15% that is now available to them and me. > > Deal? Well who is your employer because from what I can tell, you are either self employed and paying both sides of social security or your employer has been ripping you off It is literally impossible for someone only paying the employee side of social security to have paid 200K into the system. Even a self employed person would have to have maxxed their contributions for the last 20 years. Or are you counting your employer’s tax as YOUR tax? So your transition rule would be to let YOU off the hook? Not much of a transition rule. Or is the idea that anyone taht has paid at leat 200K into teh fund can get off the hook? Because frankly THAT doesn’t sound like much of a transition plan either. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/235 "2010-06-15T15:36:01Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > I agree, but I would argue it’s completely relevant. > > If you want to increase the employed, you need to reduce the cost of employment to employers. FICA and Medicare are 15% right off the top. You really like to double count that 15% don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/236 "2010-06-15T15:45:37Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > What makes you think so? The populist patriotism of the American businessman, his unwavering commitment to the American working man? > > “Gee, let’s see, fifteen percent savings. Could plow that into further hirings, which would be a good thing to do for my fellow Americans, and honor my duty as a citizen. Or, I could turn it into a dividend for our shareholders, and then our Board will reward me with a gazillion dollars, a private jet, and a solid gold douche nozzle. Boy, that’s a tough one…Ponder, ponder…” Well if you are self employed as this poster might be based on his assertions of how much he has paid into the social security system, the shareholder and the employee are the same person. I also pay the self employment tax and the 15% tax really stings but I also have the ability to deduct things taht wage slaves cannot deduct. I shift some of my income from wages to investment income by owning the building and equipment and rent it back to myself. I can combine business and leisure in tax efficient ways. I can control my income in ways taht wage slaves cannot. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/237 "2010-06-15T16:10:06Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So you haven’t heard of the social security trust fund?n It holds US treasuries. If you don’t think US treasuries are real assets then i really don’t know what to say. > [@](#): > > Because under current federal law these securities represent future obligations that must be repaid, the federal government includes these securities within the overall national debt. [Cite.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund) If you owe money, that is not an asset. > [@](#): > > Once again are you not familiar with teh social security trust fund? There is nothing in that trust fund except a promise by the federal government to pay back the money that has already been spent. If this is still unclear, I will offer you a deal that (IIRC) I offered **Dick Dastardly** or someone who also did not understand the nature of what constitutes a debt and what is an asset. If you send me $5,000 this year, I will send you $6,000 next year, if you send me $6,000 next year. In other words, sending me $5,000 means that you will have assets of $6,000 next year. Right? That’s how the Social Security trust fund works. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/238 "2010-06-15T16:54:25Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Because it has even less content or credibility than your Cato “cite”. Do you think you’re scoring a point of some kind there? No - everyone on this board does though. You asked for cites. I give you Cato. You say you don’t like Cato because they are too conservative. I give you HuffPo. You say… that you don’t like HuffPo? Just because? Please provide the source that would be an appropriate cite for you. Mother Jones? The Nation? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/239 "2010-06-15T16:58:57Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > No - everyone on this board does though. 😛 You now know, or at least have had the knowledge presented to you, what a Ponzi scheme is and how Social Security works. Time to let it go, amigo. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/240 "2010-06-15T17:26:55Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > So the question is moot (as opposed to this debate, which gets so many results in the real world :rolleyes: ) lol, if actual real world impact were important at all, this entire forum would become moot. > [@](#): > > You are right that PBGC mods pensions when they take over. And you are right that SS is underfunded. I’d argue that we (US politicians, and those who elect them) haven’t shown the political will, and certainly none’s coming from this trainwreck administration, to make the painful changes necessary so that the country isn’t Greece when the boomers retire and the bill comes due. And I would argue taht social security is barely a pimple of a problem (in teh fiscal sense) compared to medicare and wringing your hands over a program that is largely solvent and even if it reaches insolvenscy is likely to regain solvency within a generation. Medicare is the real threat to America and that is why health care reform is so important. > [@](#): > > If you view this as a pension scheme, then it’s something like a contract; people put their contributions in and then take them out later according to some schedule. Modifying that contract would be a breach of trust between the feds and citizens. Yes PBGC does mod pensions, but only after the entire company has gone bankrupt and is disintegrated… I’m assuming you don’t forsee that for the US :eek: > > If you view it as an entitlement, then there’s far less of a connection between what you contribute and what you get out - just hit 65 or whatever retirement age and you get your check. I think its something in between an entitlement and a pension, but I think entitlement is a better descriptor than pension. > [@](#): > > But those are exactly the moves you need to make if you think it’s an entitlement. To be perfectly honest, if we remove the cap and apply the tax to deferred compensation, we don’t have a funding problem (we might have a slight timing problem but…). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352.md?page=13)