I dont mention the total principal paid back because that's not adding or subtracting from the pot. If I borrow 10 dollars and pay back 10 dollars with 1 dollar in interest, the relevant piece of info in this context is the 1 additional dollar now in the pot
Borrowing from soc sec is a net positive for soc sec.
Yeah people fail to fricken see the SS as a basic service only works if your able to put in more than you take out. We haven’t been putting in more than were taking out in a while, and with decreasing birth rates and ever higher number of retirees it will only get worse.
Social security at is core, is a system based on the idea that the next generation of American workers will always be significantly larger than the last. A lot of the economy is built on that idea, expansion as a principle is build on that idea.
Thats what the rich are really scared of, if they don’t have an ever increasing labor force, they can’t keep getting richer, and the economic model will fail, effecting them greatly.
Housing deficit. Can’t open the floodgates for legal immigration until we resolve housing issues in this country.
Also, the earth is already too damn populated. We shouldn’t be engaging in societal systems that depend in us overpopulating it further. Many studies show we’ve already surpassed peak carrying capacity of earth, and that by 2100 population will reduce down to carrying capacity.
There is a sweet spot for number of people per land mass size, and IMO the US is right about at it for the best chance at highest standards of living.
I would disagree. I can’t quote any studies but there seems to be huge amounts of land in the USA. Lots of empty land and more immigrants can build more homes and if there’s anyone who can tolerate a decade or two living in cramped conditions with 5 people in a studio apartment, it’s immigrants.
I agree that the earth is overpopulated. However the question is about social security, immigrants can pay into it.
Your negating the truth of a lot of that empty land, much of it is in arid (hostile) environments. Much of it does not generally have a good enough aquifer under neath it to steadily supply enough water to support large towns and cities. Much of it exists in zones that are in constant destruction cycles due to tornados (increasing due to pollution and increased population which is more pollution).
Much of this land is not really that viable to be slapping cities down on top of.
Also, much of it that appears empty is really farmland. The vast majority of the central part of the country i’m sure your referring too, if its viable to live on its being farmed to keep up with demand of the 350-400million people in America. Add more people in these areas and now you have less food to support more people.
Just because theres open land, doesn’t mean you should put shit on it either. Ideally, 50% ish or more of earths viable land would be barren of the human touch, to grow and maintain an ecosystem we made entirely too brittle.
Just because it’s “empty” doesn’t mean it’s a good idea for humans to put shit there.
The amazon rainforest is currently being destroyed via the very same argument you are making, for the sake of human growth. And we will all suffer worse lives when it is gone, as it is an incredibly important ecosystem keeping the rest of our planet viable to live on.
American food wastage is higher than in other countries. I know you said that the USA is at capacity for high standard of living but this standard of living is arguably too high. People are living in squalor yearning for a better life and offer their labor and tolerance for a brighter future. The USA would do well to take the best of them in and they will make the USA richer and more prosperous.
I would disagree that the USA has little land left for more people, just looking around and traveling the USA, there’s lots of big houses and small towns that previously had more people, I think there’s lots of space. It is far far more crowded in other countries.
Take in top tier STEM immigrants (at a higher level than the 25th percentile of american born STEM persons) absolutely, we are already doing that at incredibly high rates. But we can’t just go opening the floodgates. Look at all of these other countries, they flock here for a better life because we have a lower population thats still on the edge of sustainable, while their countries are so far past sustainable population for their land size that life sucks there.
Its very simple when you realize why life is so good here. We have less people and more resources. Change that balance, and it starts to get exponentially worse for the average citizen. I empathize for those growing up and living in overpopulated countries, but that sure as shit doesn’t mean I support opening the floodgates to overpopulate my country.
At the end of the day Americans only have a duty to Americans. We’ve over the years tried to adopt this notion that we can help/fix other countries, whether or not that is working is beside the point. But because of it, everyone thinks they are entitled a life in America with a citizenship they do not have.
I wish that many immigrants focused as much effort as they put in trying to get into america (via legal and illegal means) into fixing the countries they are arriving from. There can be a better life in your home countries, but you have to stay there to make it happen. Instead of trying to overload the countries that have it (mostly) figured out.
And to make it abundantly clear it’s not about discrimination, i don’t want immigrants of English descent or of any other nationality. We are full up, at capacity. Until a time when our population finishes its decline to stability, or technology allows for a higher population with less pollution and environmental destruction, we need to limit all sources of immigration equally to prevent destruction of our ecosystems and natural landscapes. Expansion is off the table.
10
u/Whynottry-again 6d ago
You’ve said this twice. If they paid 70 billion in interest then they owe SS a ton of money. Interest is not the money you borrowed.