http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=703&e=6&u=/ap/20050313/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

At least there is still some intelligence left in this country, too bad they elected this idiot again, but at least everybody isn't just going to follow everything he says yet. Bush's plan to destroy social security isn't very popular at all because the american people know what it will do. The Bush plan is to destroy the system, because we all know the far right hates social security, his buddy Rove, has said he'd like to see social security abolished. Yeah, just let all the old people starve to death, that's compassionate conservatism for you.

I have mixed opinions on the social security issue, none of which are too strong...

To be honest, I haven't really followed the SS debates because I had decided many years ago that I don't trust social security to still exist by the time I reach retirement age, regardless of what they do or don't do with it...

On one hand, I think the privatization is GOOD because the current social security payments are not enough to live on.  Someone who is relying on that for their sole source of income will be lucky just to be able to pay their rent.  For someone who has worked and poured money into the program their whole lives, they deserve more.  Without some sort of investment option, there is no hope of that changing.  While the payments will increase, the cost of living will be right there with it.

On the other hand, I think it is bad, because the stock market is unpredictable and people stand to lose their retirement money, in which case they will end up on welfare.  In the end, this will cost us.  Again.

I think it would be a better idea to give incentives for people who don't need social security, to not use it.  Many homeowners, business owners, etc. will be plenty comfortable after retirement... A tax break, 100% free medical care at any hospital, free college scholarships for grandchildren... those are all examples of incentives that might persuade some not to use social security, thus allowing those who need it and deserve it after 50 years of hard work to live a little more comfortably...

I agree, not everyone needs it. I think only the people who actually need it in their elder years should draw from it. That way those that really do need it can get more money.

I agree


I must have misread that...lol  ;D



just kidding

I must have misread that...lol ;D



just kidding


I wasn't feeling well, honest. ;D

I like your avs. I watched the Smurfs all the time when I was a kid. 8)

You mean his plan to give some mo' o' de public dough to his bigshot buddies on Wall Street!
:P

I agree, not everyone needs it. I think only the people who actually need it in their elder years should draw from it. That way those that really do need it can get more money.


If you are talking about people voluntarilly not taking it, no prob, but if you are talking about some kind of "need test" than I would have to disagree.

If you want an "individual retirement account" you can have one right now.  Its called an IRA.  Cat has one which is invested in mutal funds and stocks, tax defered.  My pension is split between an annuity and mutual funds through TIAA-CREF, the teachers' retirement program.

Bush's plan will not save SS because it takes $$$ OUT of the system when it needs more.  Right now it is solvant, depending on who you ask, for 20 to 50 years into the future, when it will have to cash in some of the treasury bonds it holds in the trust fund.  The problem could be solved by continuing the current benefits structure, with its cost of living ajustments, and increasing the cap like to at least $180,000 (currently at $90,000).  I advocate eliminating the cap.

If you are talking about people voluntarilly not taking it, no prob, but if you are talking about some kind of "need test" than I would have to disagree.



Yes, I am talking about voluntarily not taking it... but nobody is going to voluntarily not take it unless they have something to gain by not taking it... I know I wouldn't just say "oh it's ok you can keep it"

Yes, I am talking about voluntarily not taking it... but nobody is going to voluntarily not take it unless they have something to gain by not taking it... I know I wouldn't just say "oh it's ok you can keep it"




The problem is, who is going to pay for the incentives?  Where will the $$$ come from.  At first glance the idea sounds great, but, as they say, the devil is in the details.

The problem is, who is going to pay for the incentives?  Where will the $$$ come from.  At first glance the idea sounds great, but, as they say, the devil is in the details.


Well, they'd have to be creative of course... but if I was a healthy 65 year old and I faced the option of retiring, what would inspire me to not take social security?

Suppose I had a $140,000 mortgage balance on my house and the government offered to pay it off in a lump sum, and I would make payments to the government on principal only, as long as I wasn't on social security.  I wouldn't have to have to pay anymore interest.  That might make working part-time a more attractive alternative.  If I changed my mind later and decided to take social security, i would have to start paying principal + interest.  And except for incidentals (people to process paperwork, etc) the government wouldn't lose any money.  But they would be keeping the social security money I was supposed to get.

Yes, I am talking about voluntarily not taking it... but nobody is going to voluntarily not take it unless they have something to gain by not taking it... I know I wouldn't just say "oh it's ok you can keep it"




I would. Part of the reason I desire to be wealthy is just so I can have the money to give lots of charity.

I would. Part of the reason I desire to be wealthy is just so I can have the money to give lots of charity.


I'm all for helping out legitimate charities, although I usually do it in the form of needed items instead of money...

Proceed with caution though, there are alot of crooked charities out there.. make sure you do the research first...

  This "crisis" is political, not financial. Conservative paranoia perceives a threat in anything "social". The only "social" ideas that seem to matter to conservatives have to do with the social propriety of white shoes after Labor Day. Other than that, "social" notions are anathema, and the Bush administration, facing an economy that depends on runaway consumer spending, needs to figure how to build some cash savings inside the U.S. Privatized Social Security accounts are one way.

  Given the conservative vision of wealth distribution, we have no reason to presume that Bush's plan will have any substantial effect other than lining Wall Street's pockets. To the other, we have every reason to presume that Bush's plan will transfer more wealth out of the hands of those who need it and into the hands of those who don't...

  Think about the paradox of the ownership society: "You own it, and we tell you what to do with it." It's just everything conservatives complain about in liberalism disguised in sheep's clothing. As with employee benefits such as healthcare, retirement plans, and educational assistance, we see the capitalists drifting toward communism while scrambling for a way to hide the fact of what they're doing.

  Remember: Reagan cut income taxes for the wealthy, and then raised the payroll tax in order to hit up the middle class and working poor to cover the revenue loss.

  George W. Bush's tax cuts will cost Americans more money over the same period than the Social Security "crisis" Bush supporters fear. Once again, play to the wealthy, and ask the middle class and working poor to pick up the tab by diverting tax revenues...

What I don't get is how is this plan going to solve the so called problem with the system if it is going to be taking money out of it.

  This "crisis" is political, not financial. Conservative paranoia perceives a threat in anything "social". The only "social" ideas that seem to matter to conservatives have to do with the social propriety of white shoes after Labor Day. Other than that, "social" notions are anathema, and the Bush administration, facing an economy that depends on runaway consumer spending, needs to figure how to build some cash savings inside the U.S. Privatized Social Security accounts are one way.

  Given the conservative vision of wealth distribution, we have no reason to presume that Bush's plan will have any substantial effect other than lining Wall Street's pockets. To the other, we have every reason to presume that Bush's plan will transfer more wealth out of the hands of those who need it and into the hands of those who don't...

  Think about the paradox of the ownership society: "You own it, and we tell you what to do with it." It's just everything conservatives complain about in liberalism disguised in sheep's clothing. As with employee benefits such as healthcare, retirement plans, and educational assistance, we see the capitalists drifting toward communism while scrambling for a way to hide the fact of what they're doing.

  Remember: Reagan cut income taxes for the wealthy, and then raised the payroll tax in order to hit up the middle class and working poor to cover the revenue loss.

  George W. Bush's tax cuts will cost Americans more money over the same period than the Social Security "crisis" Bush supporters fear. Once again, play to the wealthy, and ask the middle class and working poor to pick up the tab by diverting tax revenues...


Exactly!!!  No argument here.  You hit the nail on the head.

Part of the problem is that there is no problem. I heard somewhere the Social Security should actually be ok until 2040 at the current rate as long as we make the needed adjustments(which have had to been made before in the past). Can anyone shed more light on the subject? Don?

Exactly!!!  No argument here.  You hit the nail on the head.


Ok then answer me this:

Do you think its fair that after 40-50 years of working our a$$es off that all we (middle class, poverty class, whoever) is barely enough to pay our rent?  What about food?  gas?  entertainment?  clothing?  

I don't particularly like the social security plan because i can see people who invest it in private funds can lose and then will end up on welfare or some other form of assistance, causing people to pay twice.   Even if SS as it stands now is solvent for many years, its not enough.  People on welfare get about as much as people on SS... SS recipients should be getting much more.. they put in their time.   The only way I can see to solve THAT problem is to raise SS deductions (which I would oppose), or invest somehow so that we can have enough money to live comfortable when we reach retirement age.  

Part of the problem is that there is no problem. I heard somewhere the Social Security should actually be ok until 2040 at the current rate as long as we make the needed adjustments(which have had to been made before in the past). Can anyone shed more light on the subject? Don?


That is, if barely enough to pay rent is "OK" with you for someone who has worked, but struggled to make ends meet their whole lives.

I think this is kind of a cat that got out of the bag.  People actually examined the Bush plan.  If the same number of people gave the same scrutiny to the rest of his plans, they would't like them any either!
:P ::)

That is, if barely enough to pay rent is "OK" with you for someone who has worked, but struggled to make ends meet their whole lives.


Seems to me that is how it is right now already..

Seems to me that is how it is right now already..


Yes it is, and that is a problem.  So I disagree when you say "There is no problem"

Don't forget the $$ you'd be paying them from your part time job ;)


True. 

Ok then answer me this:

Do you think its fair that after 40-50 years of working our a$$es off that all we (middle class, poverty class, whoever) is barely enough to pay our rent?  What about food?  gas?  entertainment?  clothing? 

I don't particularly like the social security plan because i can see people who invest it in private funds can lose and then will end up on welfare or some other form of assistance, causing people to pay twice.  Even if SS as it stands now is solvent for many years, its not enough.  People on welfare get about as much as people on SS... SS recipients should be getting much more.. they put in their time.  The only way I can see to solve THAT problem is to raise SS deductions (which I would oppose), or invest somehow so that we can have enough money to live comfortable when we reach retirement age. 



The simple solution to the problem would be to raise the cap on S.S. but that won't happen because everyone who would have to vote to raise the cap is far above the cap themselves. They don't want to pay more than they have to. Why should they have to pay their fair share? Everyone in Congress/Senate pays the same amount as Bill Gates. If they took off that cap, then S.S. would be secured for a VERY long time and there may even be enough to provide our grandparents with a livable income so they can enjoy their golden years without having to worry about choosing between drugs and food.




Cat

The simple solution to the problem would be to raise the cap on S.S. but that won't happen because everyone who would have to vote to raise the cap is far above the cap themselves. They don't want to pay more than they have to. Why should they have to pay their fair share? Everyone in Congress/Senate pays the same amount as Bill Gates. If they took off that cap, then S.S. would be secured for a VERY long time and there may even be enough to provide our grandparents with a livable income so they can enjoy their golden years without having to worry about choosing between drugs and food.




Cat


You have a good point... but here's one question.  If there is no cap, and everyone pays into SS based on their income, meaning Bill Gates pays $1000 for every dollar I pay, does Bill Gates receive the exact same benefit as I do, or is the "payout" still have a cap?

But, if you think about it, they ARE paying their "fair share".  Let's say Bill Gates goes over the cap by $1 million.....Joe Blow goes over by $50.  The amount they put in is the same, but so would the amount they could take out (if they were the same age now, at retirement, and at death AND had worked the same amount of time, contributing the exact same amount over their "working lives".)  There IS a current cap on ss benefits you can receive/family.  So, if you make Bill Gates put in $1 mil, knowing he'll only get $100K back after retirement, isn't that wrong as well?


I would hAve to say no.  Think of it in percentage terms.  I pay something like 10 to 12% of my income into SS, Gates pays what, like .0005% ?  If he payed the same % I do, the system would not only be solvant, but could afford to pay higher bennies to everyone.

I like your avs. I watched the Smurfs all the time when I was a kid. 8)


Thanks.  Somehow I didn't notice this post until today.  :)