Guest bengalrick Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 if you are like me, and under the age of 27 or under, your social security is doomed (2042)... the system will actually start dissolving in about 15 years, when our governement has to start paying into the fund, instead of us (people under retirement age) paying fully for our grandparents... when the baby boomers hit full blast, our social security will be a huge burdon to our economy... whether you hate or love george bush, if your under the age of 27, have children that fall into that category, or just care about keeping this economy and our people strong, you should be kissing bush's ass right now... maybe not (in your eyes) for the "massive blunders" you think of him, conserning iraq... Bush has taken a position that no politicial had the balls to take in a very, very long time... it isn't a sure thing that social security can be saved, but the first step has been taken... he started talking about it and actually giving decent solutions... If your close to or at that retirement age, i can see your concern b/c we will be making dramatic changes, but if we can keep their benefits the same and sure up the system, bush is the man!!! heres a link that answers some questions about social security... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiyall69 Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 I say get rid of it. SS takes more money than I put into my own retire and I put in 6%. It would put more money in my hands, where it belongs because I worked hard for it. There isn't much of a chance that I will see that money again. The strong will survive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 I agree with you hiyall, but at the same time I have to feel some compassion for the less fortunate, particularly in this case the elderly, who may be infirm, broke, widowed, afflicted with any variety of debilitating conditions, etc and REALLY need that monthly check to scrape by. And remember, those who are now collecting it paid into it too. We may very well just have to raise taxes to keep it afloat. Or the govt (who got us into this mess, let's remember) will have to squeeze some budget cuts somewhere else and divert the saved money into SS.... Tough question. But ultimately I say fix it, and keep it. Maybe a voluntary program whereby those who really are well-off and don't need it could refuse their SS checks, thereby allowing more funds to go to those who really need it...who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 I say get rid of it. SS takes more money than I put into my own retire and I put in 6%. It would put more money in my hands, where it belongs because I worked hard for it. There isn't much of a chance that I will see that money again. The strong will survive! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> as the system stands, i have about a 1% chance of seeing any money from the program.. the other day, i was talking about this to my wife (yeah i know, i am a dork!) and she was like, "well that sucks, what about all that money we've paid into the program already..." and i was like "think about the people that have paid into it for 30 years... we have only paid into it for about 7..." thats kind of why i wanted to bring it up, b/c if i wouldn't want it to fix it, i'd be an idiot (considering it is doomed) but for the people that are about to reap the benefits of their hard work of paying into this... i say, lets partially privatize our SS and in 10 years, convert it to a fully privatized social security program... I agree with you hiyall, but at the same time I have to feel some compassion for the less fortunate, particularly in this case the elderly, who may be infirm, broke, widowed, afflicted with any variety of debilitating conditions, etc and REALLY need that monthly check to scrape by. And remember, those who are now collecting it paid into it too. We may very well just have to raise taxes to keep it afloat.Or the govt (who got us into this mess, let's remember) will have to squeeze some budget cuts somewhere else and divert the saved money into SS.... Tough question. But ultimately I say fix it, and keep it. Maybe a voluntary program whereby those who really are well-off and don't need it could refuse their SS checks, thereby allowing more funds to go to those who really need it...who knows? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> i hope not!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BengalLady Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 I say get rid of it!!! Let people choose where their money is going to go for retirement. I think it would benefit everyone and in the long run give people better security as they get older. They can choose the fate of their hard earned cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiyall69 Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 The way to fix it would be to set the money that I am paying them aside for ME! It's my understanding that SS was suppose to help those save their money for retirement. The money I put in, should be given back to me when I retire, not to those that didn't put their money into it. If the government wants to help the elders and baby boomers that are getting ready to retire, then they need to come up with a different program besides SS and Welfare. Once again. Only those that actually put into the program should reap the rewards of SS. That's just my opinion! Accounts for all of us should have been created and the money we paid should have been placed in those individual accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BengalLady Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 It does sound kind of selfish, but it would encourage people to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiyall69 Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 Selfish my ass, I work hard for my money, I should get to spend it! LOL. Well, I at least work for my money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 i agree hiyall... but the system wasn't originally designed for you to pay for YOUR retirement... it was created for you to pay your grandparents retirement (pay as you go)... those people did pay into that account... i agree that we need to look at welfare a little harder... btw hiyall, i was under the impression that you were liberal, or at least a democrat... after hearing you say things like "only the strong survive" and "get rid of welfare" i have to change that assessment... was i wrong, or do you only hold these conservative views?? also, i was hoping to get a response from smoov... i'm interested in what you think about this stuff... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiyall69 Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 I told you from the get go, that I am not a democrat. I am an independent that leans toward Republican. And not to get into this discussion but I didn't want Bush in office. I didn't want Kerry in either, but Bush I wanted out. I have my reasons, so please don't turn this into that kind of conversation. It just the elections over, Bush is in, and I've accepted it. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiyall69 Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 I thought it was designed to help those save for retirement that wouldn't otherwise. For instance, those that don't put back into 401k. I understand that when the program started, there were retirees that didn't have the option to put money in, so the government thought that each generation would pay for the previous. Well this is not working, we have the baby boomers that outweigh our generation. And the baby boomers are retiring earlier now. Thus less money going into SS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 I told you from the get go, that I am not a democrat. I am an independent that leans toward Republican. And not to get into this discussion but I didn't want Bush in office. I didn't want Kerry in either, but Bush I wanted out. I have my reasons, so please don't turn this into that kind of conversation. It just the elections over, Bush is in, and I've accepted it. Thanks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> my bad, i remember you saying that now... i wasn't trying to turn this into that kind of discussion, just asking... so what do you think about the election... fair enough about bush... I thought it was designed to help those save for retirement that wouldn't otherwise. For instance, those that don't put back into 401k. I understand that when the program started, there were retirees that didn't have the option to put money in, so the government thought that each generation would pay for the previous. Well this is not working, we have the baby boomers that outweigh our generation. And the baby boomers are retiring earlier now. Thus less money going into SS. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> it was definately for those that don't save, and thats what its still being used for... just ineffectively!!! i actually started a 401k for that reason... every economic teacher i ever had in college said that the program was dead and the only chance we had was a 401k... i'm glad i listened another thing they are proposing is moving the retirement age back... that would really piss some people off.. better if we can get around this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiyall69 Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 I don't think anything about. He won fair and square. Both the electorial and the popular vote. I know you were just asking, you hadn't turned into that convo yet, I just wanted to steer away from it. LOL The only thing that pisses me off is that people still don't realize how important it is for them to get out and vote. For example, the school district I live in needs a levy to be passed badly (didn't ask for a new levy for 10 years). The last couple of years we've asked for new levies, and there are people out there trying to discount the need of the levy. Starting rumors and stuff, trying to influence people to vote NO! Yet, something like 33% of the registered voters didn't get out and vote. The levy failed once again. So for this next election, we are starting our own campaign to get it passed. With the failed levies, kids are now paying to play sports, paying more for class fees, no bus transportation for the High School. In my district, we have an overwhelming amount of senior citizens. They sit there and take money from me through SS but they turn around and continue not to use their money to help the kids! Thats my biggest beef with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whodey319 Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 I actually have some insight into this problem. I have met and talked to US representative Steve Chabot about 10 times and the last time i saw him, he said something to us about social security. He is writing a bill with the support of many others and the president that would semi-privitize your social security. It will never be 100% in your control but we should be able to do with 25% of it whatever we want. This doesnt mean you just get the money, but you can choose a mutual fund or ira to put it in but you are prohibited to get any of the money until you are at the age where you will start getting social security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 I actually have some insight into this problem. I have met and talked to US representative Steve Chabot about 10 times and the last time i saw him, he said something to us about social security. He is writing a bill with the support of many others and the president that would semi-privitize your social security. It will never be 100% in your control but we should be able to do with 25% of it whatever we want. This doesnt mean you just get the money, but you can choose a mutual fund or ira to put it in but you are prohibited to get any of the money until you are at the age where you will start getting social security. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> do you think they will raise the ss age??? also, i'm sure you can borrow from that fund if its partly ours, just have to pay it back, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whodey319 Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 my understanding was that you cant touch it except to move it into a different fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted December 19, 2004 Report Share Posted December 19, 2004 you don't fix pyramid schemes.... You just hope that you are not on the bottom level when it runs out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted December 19, 2004 Report Share Posted December 19, 2004 you don't fix pyramid schemes.... You just hope that you are not on the bottom level when it runs out <{POST_SNAPBACK}> you got that right!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 [url="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=513&u=/ap/20050104/ap_on_go_ot/social_security_9&printer=1"]yahoo news[/url] this is supposedly the plan that bush is going to unveil soon... at least the beginning parameters... i don't know about all of you, but i'm pumped that it might actually get fixed... too early to tell now though... lets put it this way, i'm not going to stop adding to my 401k yet or anything [quote][b]Bush Soc. Sec. Plan to Allow Tax Diversion [/b] 7:16 pm 1/4/05 By LEIGH STROPE, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is focusing on a Social Security (news - web sites) proposal that would allow younger workers to invest up to 4 percent of their payroll taxes in private accounts, with contributions limited to about $1,000 to $1,300 a year, an official said Tuesday. A final plan is expected to be unveiled in late February. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the size of the private accounts could be similar to a proposal by Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., and a plan from President Bush (news - web sites)'s 2001 Social Security commission. Both would let workers divert 4 percent of their payroll taxes into accounts, while the remaining 2.2 percent they pay would continue going into the current system. The federal 12.4 percent payroll tax is split between workers and employers. Graham's plan calls for the annual contributions to be capped at $1,300, while the commission proposed a lower limit of $1,000. To sell the idea of a Social Security overhaul  and private investment accounts  the administration plans to duplicate its successful campaign for tax cuts. At an event planned for Monday, Bush will meet with White House-approved people of varying ages to illustrate how changes to Social Security would affect different generations. The strategy is similar to Bush's efforts to gain support for his tax cut packages by featuring "tax families" and their financial situations. "That's the model," said Michael Tanner, director of the Cato Institute's Project on Social Security Choice. The libertarian think tank has been a longtime proponent of investment accounts. "This is the way the president tends to campaign on these issues," Tanner said, noting similar strategies for Bush's Medicare and education plans. "He hasn't lost one he wanted to win yet." Cabinet officials are stepping up their roles in the effort. Treasury Secretary John Snow, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and others can be expected to visit communities across the country to talk about Social Security.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingStripes Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 [quote name='whodey319' date='Dec 18 2004, 09:59 AM']I actually have some insight into this problem. I have met and talked to US representative Steve Chabot about 10 times and the last time i saw him, he said something to us about social security. He is writing a bill with the support of many others and the president that would semi-privitize your social security. It will never be 100% in your control but we should be able to do with 25% of it whatever we want. This doesnt mean you just get the money, but you can choose a mutual fund or ira to put it in but you are prohibited to get any of the money until you are at the age where you will start getting social security. [right][post="27505"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] I think that is very much to what we have here and call afores. The problem, is here in mexico its not going to happen in 2025. It is right now. The profits to SS are about 1/4 of only the spendings of the retired people. They are trying to change the retirement age, but people revolt all over. It is very difficult, so what they did, was run a program called afores. That program comes from south america, and it consists of something like a retirement fund, and you put it into any bank you want, you cant touch it until you retire, but the interest supposedly always beats the inflation. The problem is in chile they did this, and it didn't work. By the time people started trying to collect money, the banks started going bankrupt, and people were left in the street. Its very hard to find a way out, but privatizing it is the only way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BengalsOwn Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 I don't really care if they fix it or not, I guess it's just time for us to think about retirement in our early 20's, and get a plan together. I have a good idea of what I'm going to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 [img]http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/{24E9FA0D-C329-4774-981D-AF36258EDDE9}.gif[/img] [img]http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/{0E1DE4CB-7A1B-4BD0-A3BB-C15FAEA131A7}.gif[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 i'm bringing up old topics, instead of opening new ones... i found a couple of topics on SS... i am halfway paying attention to what happens to this... these are republicans talking btw... (pacific and atlantic coast republicans, but still republicans)... [url="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a5nMTEf3CEas&refer=top_world_news"]bloomberg.com[/url] [quote]``Women are living longer relative to men today than they were in 1940,'' Thomas said. ``If the age difference continues to separate and more women are in the workforce, and you have more of an equality of pay structure in the workforce, at some point, somebody might want to suggest that we need to take a look at the question of whether or not, actuarially, we ought to adjust who gets what, when and how.''[/quote] [quote]Social Security isn't in a crisis and proposals such as private accounts may erode future benefits, Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary under President Bill Clinton, said on CNN. ``What we ought to do is leave well enough alone,'' he said.[/quote] i threw this last comment in to show the hypocracy... [url="http://www.cnn.com/US/9901/20/socsec.questions/"]cnn.com[/url] [quote]Q: How would Clinton shore up Social Security's finances? A: Clinton wants to add to Social Security's cash reserves about 62 percent of the budget surpluses expected over the next 15 years -- more than $2.7 trillion. The government would invest about a quarter of that money in the stock market -- a first for Social Security -- in hopes of getting a higher return. The rest would be kept, as the retirement system's reserves have been, in safer but historically lower-yielding Treasury bonds.[/quote] heres an [url="http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200501140807.asp"]article[/url] about the change in stance, from clinton years to bush years... they were all for it when clinton was saying it... the system is broke... why wait until its too late to fix it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.