Saving Social Security, Episode 2: Boom Baby Boom!

October 10, 2008

Worried about the viability of Social Security? Unless you're already collecting it, you should be!

Follow the animated adventures of Sonny, exactly the sort of youth who is set to get screwed by a system designed during The Great Depression, when workers were plenty and retirees rare.

Episode 2 of the series Saving Social Security is titled "Boom Baby Boom" and explains the demographic death grip that will force major cuts in benefits or massive increases in taxes (or both) to pay for the nation's mandatory savings plan.

Created by Lineplot Productions.

Watch episode 1, "Pimp My Walker," by clicking below:

Comments

bill|10.10.08 @ 12:35PM|#

Instead of the Bailout they should just cut everyone a check, adjusted for inflation, for the amount they have put into SS. Then close the whole thing down.

shecky|10.10.08 @ 12:36PM|#

Heh. It got better.

Not really related, has anyone seen this animated show from the UK? Fucking fantastic.

livedog|10.10.08 @ 12:45PM|#

Anyway to share these on Facebook?

Pasha2718|10.10.08 @ 1:13PM|#

Sonny has a Facebook page, under Sonny Campbell - you can be his friend there and get various updates on the project.

Or, you can get to his youtube page, http://www.youtube.com/user/SonnyFica , and link to the videos there from Facebook! Many options!

Elemenope|10.10.08 @ 1:25PM|#

If you don't care about Social Security, do what the first poster outlined. Problem solved.

If you do, eliminate the cap on payroll tax taxable income. Problem solved.

Neither of these are, like, hard, or difficult to grasp.
-------
It also occurs to me that if you were to use the $700 Billion to stimulate the economy, you could just cut every single man, woman, and child in America a personal check for $2,300. Smart people will invest it, helping the markets. Dumb people will spend it, helping consumption. Desperate people will use it to pay down all those scary mortgages that seem to weigh on everyone's mind.

Sure, it will be borrowed money, and in about ten years we'll be right back where we started. But it's not like the other plan doesn't do the same.

But instead, no, we'll just send it to banks. They'll know what to do.

|10.10.08 @ 1:36PM|#

Sure, it will be borrowed money, and in about ten years we'll be right back where we started.

So, an even better plan would be an immediate multi-billion cut in spending. as a matter of fact, maybe we should shut down everything (short of entitlements and defense...and even defense needs cut) for one year to provide Americans some of their money to help the economy.

If you do, eliminate the cap on payroll tax taxable income.

That would, of course, obliterate SS's original purpose, which was to ensure that there weren't old poor people eating cat food on the streets.

concerned observer|10.10.08 @ 1:42PM|#

whoopee. We hate old people now, along with children, poor people, and blacks. I'm so proud of you guys.

|10.10.08 @ 1:44PM|#

yes, because advocating for the discontinuation of a massive regressive redistribution program must mean "hate".

concerned observer|10.10.08 @ 1:44PM|#

Not that I'm surprised, or anything.

concerned observer|10.10.08 @ 1:45PM|#

The idea that there are old people taking it easy and luxuriously on Social Security is as ridiculouos as the idea that there are "welfare queens" driving around in Cadillacs.

Elemenope|10.10.08 @ 1:46PM|#

So, an even better plan would be an immediate multi-billion cut in spending. as a matter of fact, maybe we should shut down everything (short of entitlements and defense...and even defense needs cut) for one year to provide Americans some of their money to help the economy.

I like the notion of reducing spending. Personally I think a number of conservatives get this ass backwards.

First, reduce spending.
Second, reduce taxes.

You do it the other way, and there will always be unbelievable pressure to borrow to make up the difference, and then you can never get to step two because you're busy paying down debt interest.

Sam Grove|10.10.08 @ 1:46PM|#

I think the graph would work better if there were three columns: dependents, workers, and retired people.

concerned observer|10.10.08 @ 1:47PM|#

@AO-Of course you probably believe the welfare queens myth too so that was a bad example.

concerned observer|10.10.08 @ 1:48PM|#

And if we eliminated the government right now the economy would collapse you jackass armchair economists.

concerned observer|10.10.08 @ 1:50PM|#

the problem of course is that people here have no sense of duty. They look at the generation that raised and say "Go ----- yourself" Well don't be surprised when your kids tell you to f off when you ask them to help you afford your groceries for the month.

|10.10.08 @ 1:52PM|#

I like the notion of reducing spending. Personally I think a number of conservatives get this ass backwards.

Perhaps I'll start a new conservative movement...I thought that cutting programs before cutting taxes was smart, but that same dynamic of "borrow to fill the coffers" will always exist.

|10.10.08 @ 1:52PM|#

If you do, eliminate the cap on payroll tax taxable income. Problem solved.

Well, the current level of taxation, cap and all, generates more than is needed by Social Security, so eliminating the cap this year has zero effect on Social Security's viability.

Now, when the "Trust Fund" does swing into the red, you can be assured that massive tax increases will be part of the "solution."

Of course, nothing helps an economy's long range prospects, or the ability of people to invest for their own retirement, like raising marginal tax rates to siphon off investable income into government spending programs.

|10.10.08 @ 1:54PM|#

They look at the generation that raised and say "Go ----- yourself"

Noooo. I WANT to take care of MY parents when they get older. They're the ones who raised me...not your parents. Your parents aren't entitled to a dime of my money; only what I choose to give them.

the problem of course is that people here have no sense of duty.

"The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master."

concerned observer|10.10.08 @ 1:55PM|#

@Angry Opitmist- Like the same conservative movement that brought us the Great Depression? Oh wait thats right nobody wants another great depression.

concerned observer|10.10.08 @ 1:57PM|#

right, so no other adults paid taxes to fund your schooling policing roads or any other services that create social value?

Did your parents raise you in the wilderness? I guess the quality of your arguments indicates that you were homeschooled.

|10.10.08 @ 1:57PM|#

CO - Four Myths of the Great Depression.

Until you demonstrate to me that you have actually read anything, there's no sense in arguing with you. My pappy always said...something about pigs and mud...I dunno.

concerned observer|10.10.08 @ 1:58PM|#

@RC
"growth growth growth" and what happens when all this growth burns through the planet's natural resourcesand there's nothing else to feed the machine? What then?

|10.10.08 @ 1:59PM|#

right, so no other adults paid taxes to fund your schooling policing roads or any other services that create social value?

Did I force that on them? Are you just going to create a new concept analogous to Original Sin, that of Original Debt?

So, you want to saddle me with all kinds of obligations just because I was born. How humane of you.

concerned observer|10.10.08 @ 2:00PM|#

AO a wingnut fantasy about the great depression doesn't help I admit that the New Deal didn't get us out but neither did your prescious laissez-faire economics

concerned observer|10.10.08 @ 2:01PM|#

AO just throwing that out there, maybe so you don't get falling off your high horse.

|10.10.08 @ 2:03PM|#

AO a wingnut fantasy about the great depression doesn't help

You didn't even read it. It goes against your religious beliefs so you didn't bother. How intellectual of you.

maybe so you don't get falling off your high horse.

You just said it with no refutation? You want to make everlasting slaves of children for something for which they aren't responsible. You're pretty much a fucking monster.

concerned observer|10.10.08 @ 2:03PM|#

And yes you do have an obligation to society for what society has given you. Unless you'd like to give up all the benefits of society (language, culture, tecnology, infrastructure) and go live in the wilderness like an animal, which I guess we could arrange.
"I enjoy paying taxes. With them I buy civilization"
-Oliver Wendell Holmes, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court
Suck on that.

concerned observer|10.10.08 @ 2:05PM|#

AO-If you think equal and responsible citizenship is the same thing as unequal slavery where one person is entirely inferior to another, then your mind is so warped it's impossible to argue the point.

|10.10.08 @ 2:06PM|#

And yes you do have an obligation to society for what society has given you.

Gave me? Gave me? Really? So I can just force some unwanted "gifts" of on you and expect your great-grandchildren to keep paying them off?

you're pretty close to "love it or leave it", CO.

Unless you'd like to give up all the benefits of society (language, culture, tecnology, infrastructure)

I'd gladly pay for these things...voluntarily. The fact that you advocate not even asking is actually anti-civilization; it's the opposite of a good society.

|10.10.08 @ 2:07PM|#

I'm not going to argue your Articles of Faith with you, CO. you're not here to learn, you're here to be a prick.

So fuck off.

Elemenope|10.10.08 @ 2:08PM|#

I admit that the New Deal didn't get us out but neither did your prescious laissez-faire economics

What kills me about this sentence is that CO seems to lack an ability to use punctuation or spell a commonly-used word like "precious", and yet spelled and used "laissez-faire" flawlessly.

Who knows, maybe he's a Canadian teenager.

economist|10.10.08 @ 2:08PM|#

AO,
I learned something recently about trolls. Getting pwned in arguments doesn't hurt them. It actually makes them stronger. The only way to kill Edward's latest incarnation is to starve it by ignoring it. It can only if we allow it to survive by acknowledging it.

economist|10.10.08 @ 2:10PM|#

That said, it's great fun to taunt the troll.

|10.10.08 @ 2:11PM|#

it really is. It's like poking a stick at the ugly dog.

concerned observer|10.10.08 @ 2:12PM|#

@econ-That's right. If we just ignore an opposing viewpoint it will go away. Just stick your fingers in your ears and hum loudly! Or bleat "four legs good, two legs bad!".

The Chad|10.10.08 @ 2:14PM|#

"Unless you'd like to give up all the benefits of society (language, culture, tecnology, infrastructure) and go live in the wilderness like an animal, which I guess we could arrange."
how much does the fed spend on language these days? can I get a line-item veto on culture?

economist|10.10.08 @ 2:16PM|#

That's it, CO, you're going in the ignore hole. Now, if you'll just learn to play nice and not be a griefer to other people on the threads, you can come out and play with us. You don't have to agree, you just have to have an argument to back up your disagreement.

Eric Cartman (aka concerned ob|10.10.08 @ 2:18PM|#

THAT'S IT! SCREW YOU GUYS, I'M GOING HOME!

Ravac|10.10.08 @ 2:21PM|#

concerned observer,

This ain't Twitter.

|10.10.08 @ 2:28PM|#

When I turn 62 (only 12 more years, fuck I'm getting up there) I'll apply for social security retirement benefits. Mine will be automatically reduced because I receive a military (read government) pension. It's not the law yet, but I'm planning it will be.

Unlike the fucktards Democratss and Republicans keep electing, I can do math. And make the obvious conclusions.

concerned observer|10.10.08 @ 2:31PM|#

I'm sure J sub D has no compunctions about receiving a government pension, since it's a military pension. Need we more proof of the wingnut element on this website?

|10.10.08 @ 2:34PM|#

J sub - unfortunately, with the current model, we either cut benefits, increase the age or increase the taxes.

I think the first step should be increasing the age. 65 is not the proper retirement age anymore...we're providing a perverse incentive for healthy, experienced individuals to leave the workplace before their time.

|10.10.08 @ 2:39PM|#

"four legs good, two legs bad!"

That's the most coherent argument you've made yet.

Kreel Sarloo|10.10.08 @ 2:40PM|#

CO

A pension is part of the contract that the military makes with its members.

I didn't make a contract with some geezer I don't even know.

concerned observer|10.10.08 @ 2:55PM|#

@Kreel Sarloo-So you know all the ex-military geezers? And agreed to pay their pensions with your taxes?

|10.10.08 @ 3:05PM|#

J sub D -

All my retirement planning assumes that I will get absolutely nothing from Social Security. I figure by the time I qualify (16 years) it will be means-tested out the ass anyway, and I don't plan to qualify.

TallDave|10.10.08 @ 4:19PM|#

Just wait until the mitochondrial rejuvenation treatments start.

If you think the picture looks bad now, imagine what it will look like with a life expectancy of 120 by 2050.

TallDave|10.10.08 @ 4:21PM|#

it will be means-tested out the ass anyway,

Haha, remember when Social Security wasn't going to be welfare?

|10.10.08 @ 5:37PM|#

Just wait until the mitochondrial rejuvenation treatments start.

Yeah, like those will be covered by ObamaCare.