C
CaptFun
Guest
We’re veering into the population gospel segment of secularism here a bit - but it’s part of the same (ersatz) “religion”. Part of what made Social Security “work” when it was first implemented was that there were so many more people contributing to the program (young people) than there were drawing money out. Factor in the people who died before collecting their SSI and voila – :juggle:** - it’s working!**I guess they don’t teach that figure any more now that the birth rate in the industrial world has fallen below even 2 children per couple.
2.1 is the replacement rate where a population remains stable. I guess the 0.1 has to be factored in to account for deaths of people before they are of reproduction age.
Before there was a global warming crisis, there was a population explosion crisis. Im fact, they are all part of the same message, that people are a liability to both society, and to the life of the planet itself.
Factor in the sub replacement level population now conrtibuting to the program and the teeming number of baby boomers about to finally access their monies - and NOW there’s a problem. SSI was presented in such a way that people thought they had their own accounts - and that their lifetime of contributions was kept safe in a “lock box” like Al Gore alluded to once.
But the government did what it pleased with the money (after paying out SSI to those getting it) - more like a slush fund. And what did it matter as long as those who lived long enough got their due?
Look for more unsponsored secular commercials in contemporary entertainment and the mainstream media touting euthanasia as the generous, and “correct” thing to do (yourself … or FOR your parents!). In a morally relative world that will make $en$e.