Santorum: 'abortion culture' to blame for Social Security's problems

[CycloWizard]

Your point, as it relates to the post of mine that you quoted?

40 million more payers become 40 million recipients + 80 million payers and so on.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

40 million more payers become 40 million recipients + 80 million payers and so on.

Anyone who claims that we need a growing population in order to have a better economy is basically proposing a Ponzi scheme.

 

[Tom]

Anyone who claims that we need a growing population in order to have a better economy is basically proposing a Ponzi scheme.

Not really. A Ponzi scheme fails because it falsely represents transfer as real growth.

Actual growth isn't a Ponzi scheme.

Social Security is also not a Ponzi scheme. It needs actuarial adjustment now and then, but it's actually well funded, as well as anything can be, far into the future.

The real SS issue is not SS itself, it's the difficulty of controlling the deficit in other accounts so that the SS funds are actually used for their legal purpose.

 

[Jhhnn]

Meh. It's true that more babies would grow up into more tax payers, but it's also true that those taxpayers would demand more government goodies.

Oh, and they'd need *jobs* to actually pay into the system...

Where is all that trickle down goodness we were supposed to receive from cutting taxes at the top, anyway? How about that "Ownership Society" enabled by "Self Regulated Banking"? The obvious and enduring benefits of the "Service Economy"?

Where is it, guys? C'mon, tell me...

Republicans are desperate to draw attention away from their own failed policies, blame somebody, anybody else for the looting and collapse of the economy. Santorum is no different, he's just experimenting with different memes, trying to find something that will work, because the script from the Right Wing thinktanks ran out of excuses.

 

[Jaskalas]

Anyone who claims that we need a growing population in order to have a better economy is basically proposing a Ponzi scheme.

It's not a claim, that IS our economic welfare system. The money paid today will exist tomorrow.

 

[zsdersw]

40 million more payers become 40 million recipients + 80 million payers and so on.

If that were automatically true, why did SS need to be reformed in 1983? Surely the math would've kept things going.. and the 10 years abortion would've been legal, between '73 and '83, wouldn't have been a significant factor...

 

[CycloWizard]

If that were automatically true, why did SS need to be reformed in 1983? Surely the math would've kept things going.. and the 10 years abortion would've been legal, between '73 and '83, wouldn't have been a significant factor...

I don't know what the growth rate required to actually render SS feasible is, nor do I care enough to work it out, but it's obviously much higher than the present growth rate. Reform was required in 1983 because the rate before that also wasn't high enough, and because SS is a terrible program to begin with.

 

[CycloWizard]

Anyone who claims that we need a growing population in order to have a better economy is basically proposing a Ponzi scheme.

I'm not claiming anything about the growth of the entire economy - I'm talking about social security. My claim is only that math is math. If you disagree with math, then the combination of SS and abortion can actually work.

 

[ericlp]

haha, I got a solution. Why don't we let in HEALTHY and SMART people into the USA and let them pay quadruple for SS tax to stay in the USA. If they can't find a job or pay it, for 30 years then kick them out.

Problem solved! Be our slave for 30 years and you too Can have a green card!!! Come...Come be a slave in America; live your dream!

 

[zsdersw]

I don't know what the growth rate required to actually render SS feasible is, nor do I care enough to work it out, but it's obviously much higher than the present growth rate. Reform was required in 1983 because the rate before that also wasn't high enough, and because SS is a terrible program to begin with.

Yes.. a growth rate that abortion isn't responsible for muting, and that is likely entirely unrealistic.

 

[ichy]

I am big fan of Santorum.

I am not a fan of Santorum. It stains sheets and totally ruins the mood.

 

[child of wonder]

What a fucking idiot.

Using his logic he MUST also concede that our birth control culture is to blame as well. Virgins playing WOW are equally guilty (yes, this means you ATOT!).

 

[ShawnD1]

What a fucking idiot.

Using his logic he MUST also concede that our birth control culture is to blame as well. Virgins playing WOW are equally guilty (yes, this means you ATOT!).

I support Amerika by having unprotected sex during the day then smuggling mexicans across the border at night. More population = more SS contributions!
(ignoring the fact that eventually those people will also claim SS)

 

[Acanthus]

I didnt make any claim on it saving the system. But 40 million more tax payers would certainly help the system. The system requires population growth. Abortion has deprived the system of 40 million people with which to suck money. Of course that is going to hurt it. You cant deny that.

Ever watch/read freakonomics?

You're also looking at a 25% increase in violent crime, a LOT more welfare, a LOT more broken families, and a massive overall detriment to society as a whole.

The numbers don't lie, most of the "saved" babies are not going to become doctors, lawyers, and engineers.

Argue all you want about the ethics involved in abortion, the statistics on the consequences one way or the other are already out there.

Santorum is WAY off base.

 

[CycloWizard]

Yes.. a growth rate that abortion isn't responsible for muting, and that is likely entirely unrealistic.

The growth rate required to sustain SS is apparently unrealistic whether or not we have abortion in the picture. However, having abortion removing 40-53 million (depending on which number you believe) people from the population absolutely DOES affect that rate: dy/dt=k*y-D-A, where y is the population, t is time, k is the growth rate constant (inverse of time constant), D is the rate of non-abortion deaths, and A is the abortion rate. The only assumption here is that the rate is linearly dependent on the current population, which is the same assumption used in every population model I've ever seen, whether it's for animals, humans, or atoms in the population. D+A is simply the total rate of "consumption" of humans, while k*y is the rate of "generation." The overall growth rate (dy/dt) is simply the difference. This isn't debatable unless you disagree with a few centuries of scientific study of population growth and fundamental math.

 

[CycloWizard]

haha, I got a solution. Why don't we let in HEALTHY and SMART people into the USA and let them pay quadruple for SS tax to stay in the USA. If they can't find a job or pay it, for 30 years then kick them out.

Problem solved! Be our slave for 30 years and you too Can have a green card!!! Come...Come be a slave in America; live your dream!

Someone wrote a book about that once... Maybe you should read it. Let me know how it works out for you.

 

[HomerJS]

To quote former Senator Bob Kerrey, "Santorum is latin for asshole"

 

[ElFenix]

I'm not claiming anything about the growth of the entire economy - I'm talking about social security. My claim is only that math is math. If you disagree with math, then the combination of SS and abortion can actually work.

growth rate has to be greater than the interest rate paid.

back when i knew math i derived that. well, other people had done it before, so i didn't think it up but it was a long exercise in monetary theory.

 

[CycloWizard]

growth rate has to be greater than the interest rate paid.

back when i knew math i derived that. well, other people had done it before, so i didn't think it up but it was a long exercise in monetary theory.

Money out must be less than or equal to money in + interest. The problem is that this holds in general, but our government doesn't believe in math. They violate this simple principle in every possible way, SS being one of them.

 

[Acanthus]

The growth rate required to sustain SS is apparently unrealistic whether or not we have abortion in the picture. However, having abortion removing 40-53 million (depending on which number you believe) people from the population absolutely DOES affect that rate: dy/dt=k*y-D-A, where y is the population, t is time, k is the growth rate constant (inverse of time constant), D is the rate of non-abortion deaths, and A is the abortion rate. The only assumption here is that the rate is linearly dependent on the current population, which is the same assumption used in every population model I've ever seen, whether it's for animals, humans, or atoms in the population. D+A is simply the total rate of "consumption" of humans, while k*y is the rate of "generation." The overall growth rate (dy/dt) is simply the difference. This isn't debatable unless you disagree with a few centuries of scientific study of population growth and fundamental math.

This model assumes permanent exponential population growth. It is clear that this is not possible in the long term. SS is very well funded if people stop fucking with it. It has been looted many times starting with Hoover and as recently as the Bush Jr. tax cuts and now the Obama extension of those cuts are even more severe cuts to SS funding.

Long story short: SS isn't really in a giant pile of trouble, if they can raise the public contribution level slightly, or raise the salary cap slightly, and keep their grubby hands off of the funds, it will still be there in 2100.

 

[actuarial]

Yes.. a growth rate that abortion isn't responsible for muting, and that is likely entirely unrealistic.

It's NOW entirely unrealistic, but to expect modern population growth to slow so significantly 60 years ago would be ridiculous (about as ridiculous as us assuming population will explode again), hence why SS needed reforming.

If you have constant population growth, and no demographic changes, you do not need to fund SS (or CPP for us Canadians).

The problem was population growth slowed, and life expectancy increased rapidly. Those shifts (as well as continued future shifts) are now factored into the projections of what we do need to fund. The secondary issue with SS (but not CPP) is that the government keeps putting it's hand in the cookie jar.

And in America, 40 million unaborted babies wouldn't be 40 million taxpayers, they'd be 40 million convicts. Who are the types of people that primarily have abortions?

 

[CycloWizard]

This model assumes permanent exponential population growth. It is clear that this is not possible in the long term. SS is very well funded if people stop fucking with it. It has been looted many times starting with Hoover and as recently as the Bush Jr. tax cuts and now the Obama extension of those cuts are even more severe cuts to SS funding.

Long story short: SS isn't really in a giant pile of trouble, if they can raise the public contribution level slightly, or raise the salary cap slightly, and keep their grubby hands off of the funds, it will still be there in 2100.

The model only assumes that the rate of "generation" (i.e. procreation) depends linearly on the present population. Continued exponential growth is what math tells us will happen if this assumption is correct. Thousands of observations tell us that this assumption is correct: babies happen.

Eventually growth would slow as food, land, water, and so on became constrained. When this happens, the population growth tapers and we see that population has a sigmoidal dependence on time. At this point, at least in the US, we're far from this limit. You can see this in two seconds if you plot the census data from Wikipedia: it's clear we're still in the rapidly rising phase of the curve.

It's absolutely amazing that people will try to argue that abortion has no effect on population growth. Do you even understand how babies are made?

 

[ElFenix]

It's absolutely amazing that people will try to argue that abortion has no effect on population growth. Do you even understand how babies are made?

iirc, most abortions are by women who are delaying child bearing rather than deciding to have less kids. so it does slow population growth but mostly by lengthening generations.