Originally Posted By jonvn "And it disappeared because federal spending was slowed by a Republican Congress" Federal spending was not slowed, it continued to grow. So, that's basically wrong. "They are still going to bankrupt us" So your proposal is what? Let old people starve, I suppose?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Federal spending was not slowed, it continued to grow.> It grew at a slower rate. <So your proposal is what?> On Medicaid, increase health savings accounts, so there is greater competition amongst medical providers, and less bureaucracy. On Social Security, a balance of increasing age requirements, partial privitization, and means-testing.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper The last time a President tried to do something meaningful about Social Security he was roadblocked by...hmmm...wait...let me think...oh...it will come to me...I just need a moment....ah...Democrats. Nothing meaningful WILL be done about Social Security because it is too important as a political issue.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Wait, it was blocked by Democrats and some uninformed Republicans. I'll be fair about that.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy To this day I can't get why anyone would not want personal social security accounts they can control. et that is exactly what the democrats oppossed. Just another reason to never vote for them.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper This is the mindset that you need to get into: Social Security won't be around for me. I better darn well be prepared some other way. If you aren't contributing to a retirement account then you are a fool.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I wish they would scrap SS today and let me keep my money. The plan to at least keep some of it so I can pass it on to my family was at least a start.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper You are passing it on to your family Beau. Unfortunately, it is the family that came before you and not the one's coming after you.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I read somewhere not too long ago that if the government quit dipping into the Social Security funds to pay for other things unrelated to S.S. then the system would be just fine. True or not?
Originally Posted By alexbook >>I read somewhere not too long ago that if the government quit dipping into the Social Security funds to pay for other things unrelated to S.S. then the system would be just fine. True or not?<< Social Security would be fine in that case, but the problem is that dipping into the trust fund has been used for decades now by Congresses and Presidents of both parties to avoid raising other taxes or cutting other spending. David Stockman (Reagan's budget director) explained the problem clearly in the early 1980's, but nobody listened to him, then or since.
Originally Posted By fkurucz We should just assume that there is no SS "trust fund". Once SS outlays exceed revenues (within 10 years or so) they will either have to: 1) Resell the "Trust fund" IOU's on the open market (good luck). 2) Raise the payroll tax 3) reduce benefits paid. My guess is that it will be a combination of 2 & 3
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Social Security would be fine in that case, but the problem is that dipping into the trust fund has been used for decades now by Congresses and Presidents of both parties to avoid raising other taxes or cutting other spending.<< Basically what has been done from day 1 is that SS has been using it surplus funds every year to purchase special Treasury bills. The gov't has promptly spent these funds, but through accounting sleight of hand does not count the liablity these bonds present as part of either the annual deficit or the total debt (the rationale being the the gov't owes itself the money). So in theory the gov't could sell new paper to retire these bonds when the day of reckoning arrives. And at first they will be able to do it as the initial SS deficits will be small. But as they grow larger and larger it will become difficult to keep this up. So in a nutshell, instead of saving and investing the SS surpluses, the gov't spent them and will have to borrow in the future to cover for them.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd I must admit i haven't bothered to work for 11 years now. The only thing i can't get for free is my place of residence, and food. Everything else is just entertainment, which has always been free.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd So, since i worked for 10 years straight, i still get something that says i'm going to get 500 a month when i'm 65. Sort of makes me feel a bit safer, like i can still afford a premium pass if i become destitute.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Social Security would be fine in that case, but the problem is that dipping into the trust fund has been used for decades now by Congresses and Presidents of both parties to avoid raising other taxes or cutting other spending." Well, my question wasn't directed as a slam towards any party. I figured if this was true both parties own it. However, the rate at which this Administration spends money certainly isn't helping. In that event, I'd like to see a major overhaul of how we fund everything, if that's what it takes. Pass a law that says Soc Sec funds can only be used to fund Soc Sec. Then, see what comes up short (likely quite a bit) and go from there. If it takes new taxes, so be it. At least it solves the problem of Soc Sec reform, namely run the thing like it was intended.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>My guess is that it will be a combination of 2 & 3<< Just what mix of 2 & 3 is used will be determined by social pressures. There are tens of millions of people who are expected to have nothing beyond SS for their retirement. The feds might try to shove off the responsibility for these liabilities to the states, expecting them to provide food stamps and housing to the penniless retired. Of course the states will be hard pressed to cover these liabilities. Another possibility is that the feds will have to sell hard assets (such as land) to cover the SS deficit. One thing that is certain is that the senior lobby will be big and have a lot of weight. A far fetched possibility is that the Federal gov't might simply become insolvent and be dissolved. In this case SS would cease to exist and the burden would be transferred to the individual states or whatever new unions they might form. Of course the states would keep the income tax revenues that used to go to the feds. On the other other our creditors would pressure the states to at least honor part of the Fed's debt.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I must admit i haven't bothered to work for 11 years now. The only thing i can't get for free is my place of residence, and food.<< You mean Mom and Dad make you do chores?
Originally Posted By YourPalEd <<<You mean Mom and Dad make you do chores?>>> Boy, how i wish. I would gladly do chores, and not drive, if everything could be taken care of for me, by my sadly deceased parents, sniff, sniff. At least my parents taught me how to fish, so that i would never starve, unless i wanted too.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<To this day I can't get why anyone would not want personal social security accounts they can control. et that is exactly what the democrats oppossed. Just another reason to never vote for them.>> I'll tell you why. If we had another situation where the market lost a major portion of its value and stayed there for a while (remember 2000-2003), people could have a hard time retiring on what their accounts were worth. Don't tell me this isn't true. I read all the articles at that time how currently retired people were having a difficult time because the investment returns they had counted on for their retirement just weren't there. At least they had a guaranteed Social Security benefit to depend on. And don't tell me oh well... they will just have to get by on less. You know and I know that the government would never let that happen. Additional retirement benefits would be granted to these folks funded by; you guessed it, a tax increase. So you can pay the piper now and increase the FICA tax to what is needed to cover benefits or you can go with your silly little self-directed plan and pay the piper later. But one way or the other you WILL pay. I'd prefer to have it well thought out in advance rather than having to quickly respond to a crisis situation. Social Security has worked extremely well for almost 70 years now. The plan is not bad. It just needs more funding to handle the baby boom bubble of retirees.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I guess RT you don't care that SS is going to collapse if we keep going like we are going. This was what Bush was trying to tell people, but hey.. what does he know. He is only the President. I also get ticked when people tell me that I can't take care of MY money because something bad MIGHT happen. Screw that liberal garbage. Give me my money, let me handle it. If I lose it, oh well. It's not going to be there anyway with the current system. Rush is right about this also. He always talks about liberals needing people to not be able to take care of themselves so they can have helpless victims that will vote for them. This SS issue is just another example.
