Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="cscokd" data-source="post: 2053880" data-attributes="member: 5609">Well, while we are talking numbers...US Workforce 1941: 99,900US Workforce 2008: 233,788US Workforce percentage change: 234%<a href="http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat01.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat01.htm</a>SS Beneficiaries 1940 &amp;#8211; 222,488 &amp;#8211; $35,000,000&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; NOTE: Not everyone over age 65 was a beneficiary.SS Beneficiaries 2008 &amp;#8211; 50,898,244 &amp;#8211; $615,344,000,000SS Beneficiaries percentage change: 22,877% increase<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#Total_benefits_paid.2C_by_year" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#Total_benefits_paid.2C_by_year</a>Ratio of workers to beneficiaries:1940: 1:2.232008: 1:217.7Granted, longevity is only one aspect of the problem, but I think it is a major part of it.&nbsp; Either way, the numbers make it obvious that this is not a sustainable program.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="cscokd, post: 2053880, member: 5609"] Well, while we are talking numbers... US Workforce 1941: 99,900 US Workforce 2008: 233,788 US Workforce percentage change: 234% [url]http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat01.htm[/url] SS Beneficiaries 1940 – 222,488 – $35,000,000 NOTE: Not everyone over age 65 was a beneficiary. SS Beneficiaries 2008 – 50,898,244 – $615,344,000,000 SS Beneficiaries percentage change: 22,877% increase [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#Total_benefits_paid.2C_by_year[/url] Ratio of workers to beneficiaries: 1940: 1:2.23 2008: 1:217.7 Granted, longevity is only one aspect of the problem, but I think it is a major part of it. Either way, the numbers make it obvious that this is not a sustainable program. [/QUOTE]

Verification