Yes, the GOP has done an excellent job of destroying the consensus behind paying the FICA tax, by convincing post-boomer generations that they will never receive anything, for all the money they pay into the system.

Hmm. Let's do a thought experiment. Say you invested $1000 in an index fund in 1994 I'd have roughly $16k today on an annualized return of about 9%.

Back in my 30s I proposed on the Fool a plan where the Feds could keep my employer's half of Social Security. I would forego that and all my future benefits. In exchange I would be allowed to take what I contribute to SS every year and park it in an index fund.

Had that plan been enacted...I'd have about $3 million when I hit 65 and more when I hit 67. I'd be able to live 3x< better than what Social Security would have provided. So let's recap: I invest roughly half of what's been paid for my "Social Security" and I would still be 3x better off.

Whoops.

democrats lose arguments because to them Raising Taxes is the hammer and every other problem is a little nail that just requires Moar Hammer.

Vast numbers of people want to come to the US, build a life, and, generally, have families. If *legal* immigration was opened up, there would be no lack of younger folks to support we geezers. But, most of the people who want to come here are brown, and that seems to be a problem to some people.

The very essence of the immigration argument is WHO you let in. If all you're letting in are people in the low incomes strata, they're not paying for sh1t. More likely the opposite.

The fiscal situation Clinton left, was quickly reversed by Bush 43's two rounds of "JC" tax cuts, and a made up war, then the collapse of a speculative bubble.

Bill Clinton was the beneficiary of a conservative Congress and an entirely new sector of the economy opening up (that he had nothing to do with) while he was President. Root hard for AI.