Depending on the source, the U.S. national average IQ estimate comes out to roughly 98–100.
The thousands of people who like and forward this kind of garbage surely don’t reach that average.
Yup, I’m frustrated, even obsessed. How can people be so stupid as to believe this kind of nonsense?
While it is a fruitless effort, let’s look at a few facts.
The number of beneficiaries has increased:
- 222,000 in 1940 → 70.6 million 2026
- An increase of about 70.4 million people
- More than 300 times as many beneficiaries as in 1940.
This growth reflects several factors:
- The U.S. population more than doubled.
- Life expectancy increased, so more people live long enough to receive retirement benefits.
- Social Security expanded beyond retired workers to include benefits for spouses, survivors, people with disabilities, and dependent children.
- The large Baby Boom generation has now reached retirement age.
Also, the worker-to-beneficiary ratio fell from about 159 workers per beneficiary in 1940 to roughly 2.3 workers per beneficiary today, illustrating one of the program’s major financial challenges.
Our biggest problem is not corrupt politicians, it’s low information, uninformed, ignorant, gullible Americans – who sadly can vote 😢
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
“… Our biggest problem is not corrupt politicians, it’s low information, uninformed, ignorant, gullible Americans – who sadly can vote. …”
Nope, she is actually right.
Corrupt defined: Corrupt means acting dishonestly for personal gain
Starting with the first amendment to Social Security, the 1939 Amendments, Congress has been lying to Americans about Social Security.
Here’s the perspective from one of America’s most experienced and distinguished retirement expert, Alicia Munnell:
” (what are) the reasons for the shortfall…”
” … If Social Security were financed as a funded 401(k), it would require a combined employer-employee contribution of 11.7 percent of earnings to duplicate Social Security’s benefits at age 65 for the average earner (see Figure 1). Interestingly, this required contribution is very close to the 10.6-percent tax that employees and employers currently pay for Social Security retirement benefits. But Social Security is not financed like a 401(k) plan. Instead, it operates on a pay-as-you-go basis. …”
“… This pay-as-you-go approach is the result of legislation in 1939 … payroll taxes today and in the future must cover not only the required 401(k)-type contribution but also the missing interest. …”
“… There is no way to get back the money given to earl(ier) retirees; the only questions are how to spread out the burden over time and how to finance this share of the shortfall. …”
“… is it fair to ask today’s workers to pay higher taxes because of the historical decision to give away the trust fund? This decision benefited all our parents and grandparents. …”
“… In any case, the high cost of Social Security does not reflect a flaw in the program’s design; it is primarily due to a decision many decades ago to pay full benefits to early retirees. We need to figure out how to deal with the fallout from that decision. …”
That decision, brought to you by corrupt politicians, buying votes in 1939, and various actions since then that have promised more than the taxes they were willing to collect, promises of benefits where they were effectively sending the bill to generations too young to vote, and generations yet unborn.
LikeLike
Hopefully you see this. It’s back. Don’t know how it was deleted.
LikeLike
If politicians raised the taxes as necessary, uninformed voters would kick them out because they are so ignorant of the subject
The answer is simple. Automatically adjust taxes snd cap each year based on the latest actuarial valuation. Keep Congress out of it.
LikeLike
I just posted something a few hours ago, looked at it online, but since then, it apparently disappeared.
LikeLike
I see that. I don’t know why or what happened. I read it and replied.
LikeLike
Found it and reposted it.
LikeLike
No, if politicians had not decided to spend the trust assets, changing the program into a pay as you go system in 1939, the government could have invested the assets on the same basis as a pension plan (to the extent that the assets were not needed to pay benefits immediately). And, no surpise, they were buying votes with the first change in 1939 – making payments to folks who retired in 1940 – years early.
LikeLike
The correct way to look at it is that normal retirement is age 70 and anything before that is reduced early retirement. Just like a pension plan would. Framing it as additional benefits is wrong.
It’s not a 401k it’s a broad retirement plan/insurance program. Can you imagine funding it through the stock market— especially with this administration?
And the idea that most people could have invested the money and done better all around under is nonsense and theory only. Most Americans can’t handle day to day finances.
LikeLike
“… Our biggest problem is not corrupt politicians, it’s low information, uninformed, ignorant, gullible Americans – who sadly can vote. …”
Nope, she is actually right.
Corrupt defined: Corrupt means acting dishonestly for personal gain
Starting with the first amendment to Social Security, the 1939 Amendments, Congress has been lying to Americans about Social Security.
Here’s the perspective from one of America’s most experienced and distinguished retirement expert, Alicia Munnell:
” (what are) the reasons for the shortfall…”
” … If Social Security were financed as a funded 401(k), it would require a combined employer-employee contribution of 11.7 percent of earnings to duplicate Social Security’s benefits at age 65 for the average earner (see Figure 1). Interestingly, this required contribution is very close to the 10.6-percent tax that employees and employers currently pay for Social Security retirement benefits. But Social Security is not financed like a 401(k) plan. Instead, it operates on a pay-as-you-go basis. …”
“… This pay-as-you-go approach is the result of legislation in 1939 … payroll taxes today and in the future must cover not only the required 401(k)-type contribution but also the missing interest. …”
“… There is no way to get back the money given to earl(ier) retirees; the only questions are how to spread out the burden over time and how to finance this share of the shortfall. …”
“… is it fair to ask today’s workers to pay higher taxes because of the historical decision to give away the trust fund? This decision benefited all our parents and grandparents. …”
“… In any case, the high cost of Social Security does not reflect a flaw in the program’s design; it is primarily due to a decision many decades ago to pay full benefits to early retirees. We need to figure out how to deal with the fallout from that decision. …”
That decision, brought to you by corrupt politicians, buying votes in 1939, and various actions since then that have promised more than the taxes they were willing to collect, promises of benefits where they were effectively sending the bill to generations too young to vote, and generations yet unborn.
LikeLike
WOW…about time you created a post without your fixation on bashing Trump. Do more of this as no one is listening to your MAGA rants. To have TDR and a base case of it.
LikeLike
Just tell us how Mr Trump has made anything better for all Americans or our country.
LikeLike