In response to:

Conservatives Should End the Debt Ceiling Debate

Joseph64 Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 9:46 AM
SS recipients DO get back far more than they put in. If they ahd to live on what they put in, the payouts would be much lower. The taxpayers end up making the difference between what is put in and what is taken out. That is one of the reasons why we have a crisis in SS today. You cannot sustain a system where everyone is taking out more than they ever put in.
Zircon Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 10:44 AM
That's a bunch of hooie, Joseph. There are two big problems with SS. First, the Feds spent the money on other programs. Money that I contributed for my old age seurity. Second, the Feds are giving SS payments to those who have never contributed, and likely never will contribute - aliens, children of a dead parent, spouses that never worked riding on the coat tails of the other spouse's earnings, and on and on.
Joseph64 Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 9:51 AM
And if social security pays back less than what people put in, then it is time to end it and let the people decide where to put their retirement money. Why would you voluntarily put money into something that is guaranteed to pay back less than what you put into it?
Watching the American scene in the 1960s, historian Daniel Boorstin, invented the idea of the “pseudo-event.” The rise of television and modern mass media had produced a transformation of the news business, so that what now mattered was not if an event was important, but only if it was “newsworthy.”

As Boorstin explained, the pseudo-event was orchestrated and planned to receive maximum public attention, even if the event itself was really unimportant. Pseudo-events merely look important, because the media and the public agree to act as if they are. As Boorstin explained, the pseudo-event is not something that happens by...