Talk:Social Security

What passages in this article are on mission?

I see something about Republicans and Democrats disagreeing. Is that it? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 20:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

When you have politicians trying to run on privatizing SS in presidential elections, I'd call that noteworthy. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

"Noteworthy" =/= "missional." PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 20:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

As it now stands, the article is, shall I say, skimpy with regard to mission-related details. IMO, there is ample scope for missionality, in that the "benefits" of privateering are being sold to a gullible segment of the public (Altemeyer's "right-wing authoritarians" may be accurately described as gullible sheep) by disingenuous purveyors of pseudoscience (indefensible misreadings of the most dismal of sciences.) I'm not able to put citations to, nor offer coherent exposition of any of that, though. Anybody? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

We should also stress the economic benefits, not just the altruistic ones. Anyone who thinks that bringing millions of poor people in their 70s back into the job market will stimulate the economy needs to be kicked. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll post here for discussion of additions to avoid an edit war. Below is a quick summary of the Social Security Old age insurance program, it's all well researched, though it contradicts some beliefs about Social Security.

The snarky version: Social Security is where the government takes young peoples money and gives it to old people. It also takes money from the single to give to the married, and from the middle class to give to the poor. The rich are mostly exempt from paying. Some of the money is diverted to pay for other programs. It started as a pyramid scheme, with the initial recipients receiving much more than they paid in, but it's roughly a pipeline system now with an age group eventually receiving roughly what they put in. The large payout to the initial recipients will eventually be balanced when the program is cancelled, resulting in people getting out much less than they paid in.

Advantages include helping old people and providing an economic stabilizer.

Disadvantages include taking money from young people, discouraging saving, and discouraging working, both causing long term economic drag.

Of course, any large, sudden change to such a massive program would cause a lot of problems. --TripleO