• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Santorum blames Social Security problems on..... abortions

Oh Rick, always so quotable. If he's seriously running for president we may need a "Stupid things Santorum said" thread.
 
Santorum:
Pronunciation: san-TOR-um
Function: noun
Definition: The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.
 
Santorum:
Pronunciation: san-TOR-um
Function: noun
Definition: The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.

Definition courtesy of Dan Savage and the "Savage Love" Podcast listeners, like myself
 
So this is the whack-ass inverse argument of the one made in FreakEconomics?
 
Don't like Sanitarium at all.

However, in this instance he is at least financially accurate. Our existing Social Security system is nothing more than a legitimated, governmentally regulated ponzi scheme, with the base supporting the payees. If the government figures estimating abortions is correct, then abortion plus the leveling birth rates, plus folks living longer, have collectively resulted in much smaller financial contributing base to the ponzi scheme. An easy partial answer to at least one if not two of those contributing factors is to legitimize the illegals (or otherwise change the law) so that employers actually have to collect and pay social security on them. Until there are sufficient inducements to employers to decline to use illegal aliens, we're killing our social security system as well as our medical system, and we're killing the rest of us who are paying our taxes.
 
I just think the "more people = more people paying into SS" logic seems simplistic. Unemployment is at, what now? Do you assume that an increase in consumption from the unaborted would create enough jobs to keep them all employed? If not, how are they paying into social security? And it completely ignores all other questions that would come up with an increased population.

To me, it seems the problem is the flawed and unsustainable setup of SS, not abortions.
 
Although the unemployment certainly doesn't help things, it is not a cause of the existing Social Security problem. The existing Social Security problem we now have was recognized and predicted, universally and fairly accurately, 30 years ago, long before the current unemployment situation of the last three years. A stop-gap measure was passed to try to prop it up during either the Bush I or Clinton presidency, in one of those occasional exercises by Congress to try to appear to be responsible, again long before the current unemployment situation.

At some fundamental level it actually is that simplistic. We may not like the math, but the numbers don't change just because we don't like them.
 
Although the unemployment certainly doesn't help things, it is not a cause of the existing Social Security problem. The existing Social Security problem we now have was recognized and predicted, universally and fairly accurately, 30 years ago, long before the current unemployment situation of the last three years. A stop-gap measure was passed to try to prop it up during either the Bush I or Clinton presidency, in one of those occasional exercises by Congress to try to appear to be responsible, again long before the current unemployment situation.

At some fundamental level it actually is that simplistic. We may not like the math, but the numbers don't change just because we don't like them.

I think you misunderstood my point. The argument seems tied to the assumption that this large influx of people would have jobs, at least at the current population rate. If they don't, they can't contribute to social security. Given the current economic environment, that seems like an awfully shakey assumption. The growth in population would create some jobs due to the increase in consumption, but would it be enough, in the U.S., to prop up social security?
 
Why doesn't anyone ever bring up raising the contribution cap as the easiest and cleanest way to solve this problem. I don't pay anymore after I reach $100,000 in income for the year. It has been the same for a long time. Why not raise that cap to the first $200,000 in income and make the system work.

I also think some reforms should happen, but the bottom line is before SS aging in this country meant poverty, lack of healthcare, and for many, earlier mortality. I am willing to pay my portion to keep that from being the norm again.
 
Last edited:
SS cap just neds to exceed inflation to offset a lot of debt issues.
 
Back
Top