Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Bert, “Courage” is an excellent piece of propaganda. It makes young Americans feel patriotic and brave to support a program that adds tens of trillions of dollars to the national debt and risks their future on playing the market.

It’s interesting that the British now believe their private account “reform” was a failure. One of the reasons cited is exhorbitant brokerage fees that eat up large percentages of retiree’s savings.

Hard not to see that one coming.

Another dynamic for young people, if government fails the economy, PSA’s will fail and there is no guarantee by the Government to replenish those lost funds. Under the current SS system, come hell or high water, the government DOES guarantee SS benefits regardless of how it handles the economy. In reality, the Bush plan is trying to get the government out of the responsibility for managing the economy to insure retirees will not have to die in poverty.

Under Bush’s plan, if millions die in poverty from failed PSA’s in a failed economy, Bush’s plan says, “PSA’s were your choice so your fault.” Under the current system, the Government is obligated by law to insure its elderly against a poorly run economy and against poverty no matter how badly the government screws up the economy.

In a very real sense, Bush’s plan is intended to absolve the government of any responsibility to retirees over how well or badly the economy is managed. And one only need to look at the US becoming the preeminent debtor nation in the world to see why.

Its hard to debate the SS system before we can agree if it’s a retirement program or an Ins. program.

In my opinion, it fails on both counts.

Perhaps if we exchange the word “reform” for “improvement” we would have something to debate, (ideas how to make it better).

I have heard lots of good ideas on this in the past few weeks, but, I think a stumbleing block has been its purpose. Any ideas on that ?

Is that something we (every column in this site) could nail down to start a real debate ?

Beagle, excellent point. The original language of the bill presented by FDR’s representative Houghton, presented an insurance program - NOT a retirement program. Once the lobbyists representing interests in terms of getting paid back for their premiums got through with it, it became a hybrid of insurance and retirement.

FDR had the right idea, an insurance program based on actuarial science in which benefits were paid only to those who experienced a loss covered under the program and in which all citizens paid premiums equally for the same protection. Thus, if the wealthy lost their wealth, they would be eligible for benefits just as a blue collar working person who was befallen by adversity would be protected against poverty in their retirement years. Same benefit for all (insurance against poverty) for the same premium paid by all.

The fiscal problem SS faces in a few decades is founded in the premise of paying back an investment to all premium payers - that is not an insurance program - but an investment program and one that was never fiscally sound. The idea of paying Bill Gates SS benefits is absurd in the extreme given the deficits SS will incur in a few decades.

If the program were modified back to its original design, as a national insurance plan against poverty, making SS viable through the baby boom retirement years and beyond becomes a simple matter.

SS is a failure as an insurance system because it is non-voluntary non-competative. If people had the option of opting out of social security and either purchasing their own (more effecient) insurance or purchasing no insurance at all, the system would be morally acceptable (Although it would likely not last very long, because few people would be stupid enough to invest with a government run insurance program).

And that is the nub- David, and other advocates of social security, do not believe in freedom of choice for individuals. They think that the government knows best for people how to spend their money- and can force them to buy into an insurance scheme, even if that insurance scheme is less optimal than one they could obtain on the free market. If teh government wants to run a social security program in competition with the free market (like it does with the post office), then i say GO FOR IT. But as long as it is required of every person, regardless of their personal freedom, social security conflicts with individual rights (besides being horribly inefficient).

And that is the nub- David, and other advocates of social security, do not believe in freedom of choice for individuals.

That’s right, Misha. On this particular issue, you’re absolutely right. Though, when you thow in periodic economic crises, all free choices except those insured by the government are bad choices. But that’s a secondary argument.

Misha, people couldn’t be trusted to save for their retirements and make smart envestments before Social Security. I doubt human nature has changed since then.

The question, now as then, is what do we do with people who refuse to save, or who make bad investment decisions, or who are victims of an abrupt economic downturn or just plain bad luck?

Are you suggesting we let them die in the streets? Or do you want to put them on the public dole?

A private savings account doesn’t solve any of those problems. Social Security does.

I would think that most would agree that as a retirement plan, SS is a little less than wonderfull if that were all someone had for that.

Anyone that thinks that as a ins. program to cover disability, that SS protects you very much, you should read the rules for who is covered.
You can read all of it online if anyone is interested.( It will take you a long time to read it all!).

Did you know; If you become disabled and can’t work at your job, if you still have the ability to earn $700 a month you wont qualify ?
Not $700 a month at what did, not at anything you ever did, not in the area you live, not at any job you could think of, they will dream up some kind of work you could do, somewhere in the United States, that might pay you $700 a month!!
Min. wage is over $800 a month.

Unless you have a white cane or a wheelchair, your claim will be denyied.

You then must file an appeal(you’ll want to get a lawyer), the average wait for a hearing with a judge is 2-3 years after you became disabled!
You might just want to set aside a few years wages, just in case that happens to you.

I posted no links because there are so many and they vary so much depending on your situation.

If you read and study the entire program( I have), you will find that much of what goes in gets paid out to those that payed little to nothing into it.

Before I’m labeled just an evil Republican out to starve granny, understand that I’m not saying trash it all, just everyone put their heads together and improve it.

I am not making a prediction about whether people can or cannot be trusted, I am saying that we are supposed to be living in a free country. People have the right to plan for their own lives and retirement how they wish.

As for the consequences of freedom being negative sometimes… It is your right and the rigt to all other people who are concerned with the plight of poor people to give to whatever charity will help them. Just like it is my right to decide that some person who, by no fault of their own, had their lives destroyed by a Tsunami is more deserving of the money I earned.

Insurance protects people against individual ruin by spreading the risk to a larger number of people. It is also generally taken out to cope with unexpected events. Everybody gets old and we can predict fairly well when we need to retire. It is not an unexpected event. It is like saving to buy a house, not being in a car accident.

Social Security sets up incentives to bad behavior. Rather than save for the inevitable retirement, people are encouraged to believe that the government will take care of them. Anyone who relies solely on Social Security to fund his retirement is stupid, but most posters to this particular thread have already stipulated that many people are stupid. And the most stupid are those most likely to believe the government will care for them.

We don’t want old people to be poor. We don’t want any people to be poor. The problem is that some people are poor. If a 45-year-old man can’t work and take care of himself, what do we do? Why is that different for a 65-year-old man? Why have we decided that at a certain chronological age (with differs from physical capacity) people deserve to have the government give them money? As long as we had a large and growing workforce, we could get away with this intergenerational transfer. The demographics of the future are not so forgiving.

This is not 1935. In 1935 the U.S. had a problem with real poverty and even the middle class lived in conditions we would today call poverty. (Just take a look at your grandfather’s house where he raised seven or eight kids. These places are now thought to be large enough for a couple without children, as long as they put in a couple more baths.) Large numbers of people were poor in the sense that we no longer see in America. The country has become three or four times richer since 1935. Maybe average people couldn’t save for their retirement in 1935; now they can.

Remember who came up with idea of Social Security? It was Otto Von Bismarck. He was no lover of democracy and had contempt for the common worker. That contempt was what made him believe Social Security was necessary. As far as Otto was concerned, the ordinary worker was too stupid to take care of himself. Didn’t we just say that?

I would think that most would agree that as a retirement plan, SS is a little less than wonderfull if that were all someone had for that.

So are you actually advocating larger SS benefits, Beagle? :)

Seriously, its purpose is to keep the elderly from dying in the streets. Here in Singapore they don’t have a SS program. The elderly rely on relatives for help (if they have any who are willing) after they can no longer work.

But “no longer work” is pretty relative. Every day I see scores of withered old 70-year old grandpa’s and grandma’s - positively crippled by arthritis - bussing tables at McDonald’s, swabbing toilets, and cleaning up trash from the side of the road. No thanks.

By no means should SS provide a lavish lifestyle, but it should be a decent supplement to a person’s attempt at saving for their retirement.

Just like it is my right to decide that some person who, by no fault of their own, had their lives destroyed by a Tsunami is more deserving of the money I earned.

So, Misha, did you pick a victim and set up a personal recovery program for that person? How long will you be paying benefits for him? Are you covering his family, too? Perhaps you’re also helping him secure loans for rebuilding his house and business.

Or did you just donate a hundred bucks to the Red Cross so they could buy a case of bottled water and a few cans of food?

AP my friend,

You say “no thanks” to busing tables, cleaning toilets, and picking up trash, yet, (if we divide the 15% of SS, 1/2 retirement, 1/2 disabilty ins.),you are forced to pay 7 1/2% of your wages into a plan that would give you nothing if you could do that and earn $700 a month.

Even if you couldn’t do that, your claim will be denyied. Even with both legs choped off a the knee, you could scoot around the streets of NYC on a mechanic’s creeper and shine shoes for $700 a month, and they would tell you something equally as silly as that if you ever had to try to use it!

For 7 1/2% of your wages you could likely buy a better Ins. policy on the open market?

I would think the other 7 1/2% invested on the open market would likely provide a better retirement program?

If its such a great system, why did the people writeing the laws governing it opt out?

Perhaps if every Gov. worker, Fed.,state, local, had this plan for their retirement/disability program we could put partisanship in a bucket outside and come up with ways to improve the system.
After all, they could still buy another program out of their wages for something better, just like the workers forced to invest into this one have to!

Beagle, get some facts straight. My Senator and your Senator pay SS taxes in addition to their 401K programs. That fact pretty well undermines your entire argument.

David my friend,

I stand corrected, I had thought that they had a different system they payed into.

I apoligise for my igorance on that.
Is it something new or was that always the way it was? I was quite sure they had a different program like the railroad workers.

My only reason for offering an opinion was to see if the program could be improved and I thought that was how congress worked on that part of it.

Setting that aside, are there ways we could improve the SS system ?

jack
if u no longer see poor people in this country, it is because u r not looking. most people r only one paycheck away from poverty. and as far as the country being so much richer now than it was in the past, the cost of living has gone up as fast or faster than wages. and tho it can be very difficult to get on disability at least people in need have the hope that they will get on it. perhaps there should be reforms in this area. ss will not give u a luxury life in old age or times of disabiltiy, but it is a security that people in this country can look to. it is a supplement to other retiremant plans. most people do not look to ss to be their entire income but a supplement to their retirement income. also i dont know how old u r but it used to be mandatory to retire at 65 for most jobs. my folks set aside what they could for retirement and when they reached 65 they had their retirement and ss to see them thru. they r not stupid, and i resent u lumping people into the category of stupid because they rely on ss in their retirement years. so instead of calling names why dont u use your vast intellect to come up with a plan to either improve ss or invent a whole new system.

Setting that aside, are there ways we could improve the SS system?

Absolutely! Clinton was looking into ways to get a better interest rate on the SS surplus to cover any temporary shortfall when the baby boomer spike rolls around.

If healthcare was more affordable, and we Democrats have a gazillion ideas for that, the benefits could be trimmed a bit.

The problem is that the ruling party is not interested in strengthening a program that they’ve fought against from its inception more than sixty years ago.

I’d love to see some debate on alternatives. The GOP is stifling it.

Social Security sets up incentives to bad behavior. Rather than save for the inevitable retirement, people are encouraged to believe that the government will take care of them. Anyone who relies solely on Social Security to fund his retirement is stupid, but most posters to this particular thread have already stipulated that many people are stupid. And the most stupid are those most likely to believe the government will care for them.

I don’t see social security as setting up incentives for bad behavior. We put save money for 40+ years with the help of the government and then we get it back when we retire. If only everyone would copy this in their personal lives the saving rate in the US would go up dramatically.

Even for those who save, most are not very effective at doing so. The average 401K at retirement contains $45,000. Certainly not enough for 20+ years of living. Social security is simply a security blanket. It provides a basic amount with the safety of that blanket. If you can successfully save more, the government already gives you many incentives to do so.

David,

I had to look it up.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

It changed in 1984, yet some in congress that went in before that time still are on a different system.
Thanks for geting me to sort out facts.

“Setting that aside, are there ways we could improve the SS system?”

The only way to improve SS would be to make it totally voluntary.
That way, the people who can’t take care of themselves and rely on the govt for everything, have nobody but themselves to blame.
Let those of us who aren’t lazy make our own choices.

kctim
do u honestly believe people who work their entire lives, put $ into ss r lazy? these r not people who rely on the government for everything, these r hard working americans who put $ into ss and then it is put into government bonds. they dont get anything for free. most people try to set aside or invest $ in other sources, but sometimes ss is the only thing that keeps them from having to eat from garbage cans.
feel free to put all your $ in the stock market, then go read what seymour hersh (pultizer prize winner and investigative journalist) has to say about it.

We aren’t expecting the government to take care of us. The government doesn’t have a penny in Social Security. The worker pays 6.2% on wages up to $90000. Then his employer matches it. It is collected on your pay check for the FICA fund. The only thing the government does is collect it. Social Security is most peoples only retirement savings, disability and life insurance for the worker for their children.
Social Security should not be part of the federal budget, except for the surplus they owe to retirees starting in 2018.

I know several people on disability. An ex son in law who became paralyzed from the waist down. A brother in law with emphasema (caused from the workplace chemicals) an ex brother in law who has mental problems so bad that he is incapable of survival without it. A friend who is dying of cancer. She may live up to 3 years. The disability check is a blessing. You can’t buy a disabilty insurance worth a plug nickel for longer than a year. The first thing the disability office does is check with your medical doctor and that usually does it. It is not that hard to get if you are a clear cut case.
If these people didn’t have Social Security then they would be on welfare. So the savings to the government would not be as great as some seem to think.

If you die and have young children Social Security pays a check to your children until they become old enough to take care of themselves.

We started paying a surplus into Social Security in 1983 for the baby boomers. The government has put the money into bonds backed by the full faith of the US government. They will have to start paying it back in 2018. That is what is causing the flurry. They have given tax breaks to the rich and don’t want to honor their word to the retirees.

Social Security is a wonderful program. Privatization will take away the disability and payments to your children. It will cause deep cuts in the promised benefits. We have put into a 401 k for 13 years and by the time it is taxed we would have enough to live on for 4- 5 years if we lived frugally.

There are ways to get the money to fix Social Security that won’t hit any one group too hard on taxes. Social Security will be there for the younger generation and the benefits will be as good or better. Many people will see to that.

Hi bluebird and thank you.

“do u honestly believe people who work their entire lives, put $ into ss r lazy?”

Lazy only in the terms of not taking charge of their own retirement.

“feel free to put all your $ in the stock market”

That is exactly what I am talking about, it should be everybody’s choice to participate in SS or not.
If I choose to opt out of SS or invest all in the stock market and then end up eating out of garbage cans, I would have nobody to blame but myself.

It should be voluntary.

If I choose to opt out of SS or invest all in the stock market and then end up eating out of garbage cans, I would have nobody to blame but myself.

Ya know, kctim, that’s easy to say. I suspect you’d feel differently if you had dilligently invested in the market, and then - through no fault of your own - your investments became worthless, and you really had to feed, not only yourself, but also your loving family from that garbage can.

Doesn’t it make you feel better that, no matter what happens, you and your family won’t have to eat out of a garbage can?

Doesn’t it give you a sense of security knowing that you could take some risks in the stock market or start your own company - maybe even strike it rich - but you’re not risking everything?

People should not invest all their money in the market. In fact, due to my annual income, I have very little to do with the market.
I have a retirement account at my local bank, I drive an old truck and am stuck with dial-up service because it is cheaper. I live within my means so that I can afford health, retirement and other types of savings. My parents made sure that from my first job to my current job, I have saved.
Instead of keeping up with the neighbors in material things, I take care of my family. It should be my choice on how I wish to use my money to do that.

As Auntie said, through no fault of their own, some people really need help and I agree with that. But it should be one’s choice on how to help them.
Whether its through a voluntary SS type program or a charity, it should rest with each individual on how they wish to contribute to society.
Not be forced.

Thanks AP

If privatization goes through then the government will control how much you put in the market and will make you put it in ultra safe stock funds like index funds and you can’t get rich with those.

Don’t ever think the Social Security payment will go down…they will go to the general fund.

And don’t think that you will “own” the private account. If the government needs the money they will raise the tax on it when it is cashed out. You will have big fees to Wall Streeters.

If you buy bonds, then you will have what Social Security has now, but with a fee taken out.

If the “reform” goes through they will buy up all the stocks and by the time Social Security buys into the market it will be overpriced. After awhile with Social Security going into the market it will be a bubble and will drop like a ton of lead.

Social Security is a forced savings. I didn’t like it when I was young. We needed the money for other things. We have paid in for forty four years and it will be there for us when we retire. I am glad we were forced to pay into Social Security FICA.

You realize how important it is as you get older. It is a bedrock safety net. We don’t have to worry about hunger or not being able to pay taxes on our home or have to move in with our children.

What is wrong with the setup now? We have 401ks to invest in and our boss matches it.

If Social Security is taking up too much of the budget, that means they don’t have enough money coming in to the government (taxes) or not paying high enough wages. Think about that.

It isn’t part of the federal budget. They don’t pay a penny of it.

Its easy to see why the SS system is called the “third rail”, nobody wants to touch it.

But if at some point, if there will be more riders and cars than the system has power to pull on this subway, we would have to improve it or trash the entire system.

We can’t just trash the system because many of the riders payed in advance, their entire working life, to power the system so they could ride free at some point in their life.

Perhaps we could shield the third rail to keep anyone from touching it? (protect it from greasy lil pork stained fingers that might short it out).

We might look at the riders and see if they ever purchased a ticket to ride, if not we might allow them to take a bus, taxi, or just walk.

Some of the riders had the best of intentions to buy a ticket but are unable to walk, have no money to buy a ticket,and can’t afford a bus or taxi.

Most of us would give up our seat to them, but if we paid for the system we should still be allowed to stand in the isle?

The ones I would boot off are those with a limo, that paid little to nothing and only ride to save a lil cash.

In my humble opinion, it might be better to look at what powers the system and improve that to keep it going.

Like it or not, this is a debate that will happen SOON and those that want all or nothing will likely be regulated to little more than observeing what happens.

Respectfully, Beagle

dear kctim
i think the whole point is, they r wanting to change the system, but in reality it wont be voluntary system. he has already mentioned a government agency will be set up to “help” u with your investments. what isnt eaten up by the brokers fees will probably be taken in taxes or penalities of some kind. i cant think of one instance of this administration doing anything to benefit the working class. i think this is just another ploy to take from the havenots and give it to the haves. i dont believe his wallstreet buddies financed the inauguration hoopla out of love for the president or repugs. he owes them now and u will pay his debt. it is kind of u to do it for him on a voluntary basis

Perhaps we could shield the third rail to keep anyone from touching it? (protect it from greasy lil pork stained fingers that might short it out).

You mean like a Social Security “lock-box”? Didn’t you guys make fun of Gore for suggesting that?

Actually, Beagle, it’s great that you’re seriously looking at alternatives to strengthen the system. I even like some of the ideas. Unfortunately, the GOP leadership is not as interested - though recently a couple of the rank-and-file congressional Republicans started throwing out their own alternatives. I hope they’re not gagged in the name of solidarity with the president.

Auntie, you make some good points. Britain partially privatized their pension program in the 80’s. Now, more than 75% of retirees don’t have enough savings to provide even the ascetic lifestyle kctim has adopted.

Turns out that most of those poor bastards were sold badly designed retirement plans on false pretenses, and broker fees “absorb 20-30 percent of an individual’s pension savings.”

So… the private marketplace is maximizing profit at the expense of its customers. What a surprise!

There is less workers per person that will retire but the workers are more productive and more highly paid. The percentage paying into social security is less so they should raise the ceiling to include more people.

The government doesn’t want to raise the ceiling because it makes us less competive in pricing overseas and they claim it is a job killer. They also don’t want to pay back the bonds.

They may not have to pay back the bonds out of the general fund if they could restore and dedicate the estate tax for those estates over 3.5 million.

The baby boomers will cash in their 401ks gradually each year and the tax they pay on them could be dedicated to social security.

Raising the minimum wage would help too.

In 1983 we started paying extra into FICA to take care of the baby boomer problem, so the government has to pay that back out of the general fund, not out of Social Security. That will get us to 2040 without any changes. Then Social Security will have enough to pay 75%. It wouldn’t take much to shore that up to 100%in the next 35 years.

Life is unpredictable. Life is so different than it was 35 years ago. It will be as different in 35 years. Personally I think we should concentrate on now. Health care and the deficit should be the focus.

The billions of interest we are paying on the deficit would go a long way toward paying back the baby boomer’s bonds. The gov needs to raise taxes on those making over $300,000 and pay off the deficit. It is as simple as that.

It could be they could do a little bit of all of those suggestions.

Making the elderly work until 70 or they just get half their Social Security check if they retire at 65 is cruel. If they are too senile or get fired at 65 it would be difficult to find a job and they would have to take half benefits due to no fault of their own.

The young investors could think of Social Security as bonds. Most people put part of their money in bonds when they are investing with their 401ks, because it is supposed to add safety and income. Invest all your 401k in the market and consider Social Security as bonds if you think that will make you rich.

Those under 30 will be more appreciative of Social Security as they get older. Just as the same things they thought were important at ten are not important now, what they think about Social Security will change.

bluebird
This may come as a shock but I am not a Bush supporter. I realize his plan is not one which will be voluntary.
I am just stating that I believe SS should be a totally voluntary option.
I know our country is so far gone and that most able bodied people are now totally dependent on the govt for just about everything, I just think its wrong.
Its my life, just give me back the freedom to live it and plan for it as I choose.

kctim
so if the investment accounts are not going to be voluntary and ss is not voluntary, which do u think is the lesser of 2 evils? the sure plan of ss or the chance u take on your(and bush’s) investment decision? or r u just going to opt out all together. not being sarcastic am interested. do u have a 3rd plan?

AP,

Thank you for the kind words on my comments, I read and consider your’s also.

Auntie,

I agree with your analogy of investing somewhat in bonds, however, bonds have to be backed up by something and if that something fails they are worthless.
I see nothing wrong with debating if a younger worker(Kctim comes to mind)should be allowed to invest a small % into the market to get a better return later.
The amount they could recieve under the regular SS system could be reflected into the % they were allowed to invest, and explained very clearly that they would have to live with that choice later.
The markets are much different than they were in the 20’s, if they totally crash now everything will be bankrupt, includeing SS.

I personally don’t know anyone that with a broad investment in the S+P over the long term, that didn’t earn far beyond bank interest or bonds.
A new stock called “spiders” that owns a part of everything in the S+P might be something to look at for an investment in that portion of the system?
With only one stock to manage, and the amount of cash invested, I would think a brokerage firm could do that for a very small % of profits.

Just an idea open for debate.

bluebird
Yes, I will opt out if given the opportunity and I will continue searching for that opportunity to arise. I don’t pay income taxes and that money is well saved and used to provide for my family.
I would glady sacrifice all I have given over the past 20 years if I would not be forced to pay into SS anymore.
SS is not a sure plan as you say and I don’t think Bush’s plan will be any different than any other govt run program - just another failure.

My third plan is a simple one: I will continue to live within my means, keep paying cash for whatever I need and keep on saving for health, luxuries and retirement.
I may not have the newest car or the latest and greatest games or electronic stuff, but me and my family are taken care of and so is our future.

I don’t care if SS is around or not. I just don’t think its fair for my family to suffer because I am “forced” to contribute.

AP
ascetic? Thats priceless!
lol

I don’t have anything against the stock market. I know a woman that invested in one stock and lucked out and made a lot of money, but that is a rare thing to happen. Not many microsofts or Walmarts out there.

Investing is a form of gambling and no one loses all of the time or no one would do it.

The democrats are working on a plan for social security that will give back more to the ones who earn the least that pay into social security.

Carving the money out of Social Security would hurt women and those who earn low wages the most.

Kctim, I knew a man who said it wasn’t how much money you make, it is how much you save that counts. You sound like you have a lot of common sense about money and that is rare.

You would still have to pay the same amount as you do now for SS but get no return in your old age if they did away with SS. Right now, the choice is between investing part of it or leaving it the way it is.

The government needs the money to pay the expenses so they will take the social security money as taxes if we didn’t have social security.

SS seems expensive now, but your children will get a monthly check if you die before they are grown and you and your family will get one if you become disabled or too sick to work at any age. If you live to be a hundred you will get a monthly check from SS, where if you have your money in the market it could crash or not do anything. Or you could outlive what you make in the market. Sometimes the market doesn’t do anything for 20 years.

I wouldn’t mind if they would take the surplus and invest it as one account, then there wouldn’t be a lot of fees and they could set it up so the ones who don’t want to invest the surplus don’t have to. That would keep the government from spending it. They could invest it by percentage. If 20% want to invest and 80 % don’t, then they could invest 20%. Or they could do it by state or county if one account was too big.

SS money invested could easily cause a bubble so they will have to invest internationally too. And even then it will become a bubble at some point. A person would have to get out at the right time, and then what will you do with the money? Put it in bonds and pay a fee for the bonds backed by the full faith of the government.

Our SS bonds are backed by the full faith of the US government. They have to pay them back whether they want to or not.

Look at the letter that you get from social security every year. It tells how much you will get each month. And like I said, they are going to add to the ones who make low wages, if they can. You have double the amount paid in than it says because your boss matches it. He probably won’t match it, if it is changed to investments.

I don’t know any able bodied people who aren’t working. As you age, you become weaker, frailer and forgetful. I don’t think people should work til the day they die.

Welfare was done away with a long time ago, unless it is back.

We have been putting more in the market than in SS for 13 years. Up until November last year we would have made more on 2% interest yearly. It went up 10.5% for us last year, but is going down this year so it averages out to 7.5 so far, for this year and last year . We had put in for 9 years and had less than we had at the beginning of our 5th year in the 2000 era after the bubble burst. I couldn’t sleep, if I had to depend on the market for my retirement. The stock managers don’t want you to jump in and out of the market. They charge fees if you do.

Auntie
“Right now, the choice is between investing part of it or leaving it the way it is.”

That is why I don’t really support Bush’s plan either.
I am for a totally voluntary SS and I don’t believe in forcing one person to sacrifice income in order to support another.

“I don’t know any able bodied people who aren’t working.”

Come downtown where I work security, 10pm to 6am. and you will see plenty.

I agree with kctim. It’s wrong to force one person to support anothers retirement. I feel sorry for the poor looking old granny until I realize that I’m being forced by the government to provide for her retirement when I could be saving that money for me and my two children. I think the AARP is all about screwing the younger generations.
If you don’t provide for your own retirement you should rely on charity and the churchs. They don’t rely on the brute force of government to get money from individuals.
Troy

As many taxes as we pay, Social Security and public schools are the only programs that the middle class get a lot of good out of.

The reason they started social security was old people weren’t able to take care of themselves. It is a good program.

It won’t make you rich, but it will take care of your children if you die when they are young and your wife if you die when you are old. It keeps some stress out of your life, knowing those things are taken care of.

It is not welfare. Most people pay $3000 to $5200 dollars a year in their FICA account. Their boss matches it. The government doesn’t pay a penny of it.

It is worth a lot to know that you won’t be at the mercy of the world when you get old. We have partially funded our own baby boomer accounts. Your children will pay yours.

If the Social Security and Public School programs disappeared tomorrow the government would figure out another way to use the same amount of tax that would not benefit us as much.

Think of it as your security in case of death or disabilty or old age and forget about the taxes. We paid them for our parents and other’s parents after our parents died. :)

Well, don’t forget about it totally. We all need to fight against any cuts for the younger ones.

Come back when you are 65 and tell me you hate Social Security then.:)

I am beginning to think I am on a Republican Blog.