Originally Posted By vbdad55 <>>Who Do You Want for President?<< I'll take Kermit the frog< I'd take Kermit over Pelosi -- that I do know...less strings attached to Kermit
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I guess RT you don't care that SS is going to collapse if we keep going like we are going.>> Yes I do care. And I offered a simple solution. << increase the FICA tax to what is needed to cover benefits>>
Originally Posted By YourPalEd The only people, who tell democrats what they should do, are republicans. A democrat does exactly what they want to do, and a democrat knows this instictively. Madame President, Nancy Pelosi! Clap, clap, clap, strains of hail to the chief. "Thank you! Thank you the american public for standing up for truth and your dignity, i....," says madame president, not aware that rush limbaugh hiding in behind an airduct grill, is aiming at her. Madame president, nancy pelosi, is suddenly interupted by a catastrophy! Madame president's high heel of her right shoe suddenly detachs, and she stumbles off the podium and into the arms of a handsome young secret service agent. Deranged from drugs, rush limbaugh, tries to fire in time, but misses her and instead hits the fire alarm. The firealarm loudly clangs, and the overhead sprinklers are set off automatically. Rush slips on the sprinkler water at the top of the exit stairs, and rolls down floor after floor, plowing over secret service men in his path. Rolling through the door, rush, rushes to the docks, where he hops on a boat, and goes past america's legal boundary to a gambling ship off shore. He is greeted and quicly makes it down to his reserved suite, where he partakes, then crashes for a well deserved sleep. Madame President, Nancy Pelosi, is drenched. She is still in the arms of the handsome body guard, who is also drenched. "I'll protect you madame president," said the drenched handsome secret service agent, "I will protect you through thick and thin, but i must say it's easier to catch you when you are thin."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <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?> False. Even if the government had been able to take every penny of SS funds coming in and invested them, within 10 years we'd still be spending more than we'd be taking in, and after a couple of decades of that the trust fund would be gone.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Pass a law that says Soc Sec funds can only be used to fund Soc Sec.> The Republicans proposed such a law in the late 90's, but the Democrats shot it down. <a href="http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/ss061799.htm" target="_blank">http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/rel eases/1999/ss061799.htm</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <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.> Only if they put all their money in volatile stocks just before the market crashed. There has never been a 10 year period when the stock market has failed to bring a good return, and that's what we're talking about when we're talking about a SS account, a long-term return.
Originally Posted By alexbook >><Pass a law that says Soc Sec funds can only be used to fund Soc Sec.> The Republicans proposed such a law in the late 90's, but the Democrats shot it down.<< ...and the Democrats proposed it in the 80's, and the Republicans shot it down. As President Bush's father once said, "Never has an issue been more demagogued."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <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. > Actually, they didn't roadblock anything. They said they didn't support it, but no vote was taken. The GOP controls both houses of congress, and the white house. The problem was, the majority of the populace didn't support Bush's plan. The more he talked about it, the lower the support got. It was supposed to be the centerpiece of Bush's second term, but after taking that show on the road and watching it bomb, he pretty much dropped it.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>False. Even if the government had been able to take every penny of SS funds coming in and invested them, within 10 years we'd still be spending more than we'd be taking in, and after a couple of decades of that the trust fund would be gone.<< I guess it depends on how they invest it. Currently they are only get somethig like 2-3% return on the gov't bonds. Even something safe like blue chip private sector bonds pays much better than that. SS takes about 13% of one's income every year. If you can save 13% of your income into a 401(k) for 40 years, invested in moderate risk instruments (say middle of the road mutual funds) you should be sitting pretty at retirement. For instance: if you save $700 a month for 40 years and earn an averate rate of return of 10% (below historic averages) you will have over $4,000,000 in 40 years. Assuming a rate if inflation of 3% its presebt value is about $1.3M. If you withdraw 5% every year you get aboyut 75K a year (in present dollars). That's way better than social security, plus there will be a balance to leave your heirs.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <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. < and with 'traditional ' pensions going away more and more every year ( for major firms also - trust me I know ) - this number will continue to rise.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <For instance: if you save $700 a month for 40 years and earn an averate rate of return of 10% (below historic averages) you will have over $4,000,000 in 40 years. Assuming a rate if inflation of 3% its presebt value is about $1.3M. If you withdraw 5% every year you get aboyut 75K a year (in present dollars). That's way better than social security, plus there will be a balance to leave your heirs. < and think of the savings of dismantling the SSA ! OF course those patronage jobs are going nowhere from either party
Originally Posted By Dabob2 From those figures above, one would have to make about 60K to begin with, which is well above the median US salary. Also, assuming an annual return of 10% is part of the problem. The whole point of Social Security is that it's predictible and guaranteed. Even more to the point, it was never meant to make anyone rich (which is why comparing rates of return misses the point), just to provide a certain minimum "floor" for retirees - all retirees, and thus the nation as a whole. And together with Medicare, it has done exactly that. The demographics of the baby boom "bubble" does mean that it needs to be tweaked. But privatization is a bad idea, and the more Bush talked about it the less popular it got.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper It may not have been popular to discuss privatization but noone else was presenting any other viable solution.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 In true American fashion, that will probably have to wait until the 11th hour, and crisis mode. There have been a few Democrats and Republicans (typically moderates) talking about the coming bubble for years now, but they usually get drowned out by people demagoguing it, and then the whole matter gets ignored.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Exactly. If someone actually FIXED it then it couldn't be used as a divisive issue by either party anymore. And, gee...what fun would that be?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The thing is, too, it could be fixed. Medicare is actually the bigger problem, but the complexity is also greater and no one wants to touch it with a 39 and a half foot pole.
Originally Posted By planodisney the general public wasnt behind the personal account, because the democrats chose to use it as a scare tactic issue, instead of doing whats best for the people. I may be wrong, but doesnt great britain have this already, and hasnt it been very successful there?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <There have been a few Democrats and Republicans (typically moderates) talking about the coming bubble for years now, but they usually get drowned out by people demagoguing it, and then the whole matter gets ignored.< likely because with their government pensions and the fact most of them are wealthy, SS means little to them personally, so career wise they just steer clear...
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<<<the general public wasnt behind the personal account, because the democrats chose to use it as a scare tactic issue, instead of doing whats best for the people>> No, the general public WAS NOT behind it. That is why with a Republican President, a Republican Senate and a Republican House of Representatives, the plan STILL went no where. The people did not support it and without the people the Republican dominance of our Executive and Legislative branches made no difference. When it comes to the basic necessities of life, people want some guarantees. People purchase Homeowners Insurance, Automobile Insurance and Life Insurance because even though statistically it is not a wise investment, they want such an important area of their life protected. It is the same with retirement. It is a very important part of a person's life, and even if the guaranteed amount is less than the potential amount they will choose the security of the guaranteed amount 9 times out of 10. Let me ask you this... There is NOTHING that says Social Security has to invest their funds in Treasury bonds paying 2-3%. If the government is so gosh darned convinced that people can do better in the market, why don't THEY invest in the market? I'll tell you why. It is because they are not convinced that investment in the market would provide the return necessary to proved promised benefits. I've got to tell you... if the government isn't willing to bet on it I'm sure as hell not willing to bet on it. But of course this is all just another instance of how Democrats hate America and will never win another election. Right. You just keep believing that. We will bury you.
