posted on February 17, 2005 06:38:26 PM new
logansdad - It's the same 'alternative plan' that's been used in TX...yes. Statements from the other side of those who are involved in handling their system. See...it mentions 'just like Thrift Plans' others have.
But how in the world do you expect anyone to be able to answer your question? This whole thing is in the TALKING stages...everyone has been encouraged to offer their suggestions.
The one thing that President Bush has said is that there will be protections/safeguards in the final legislation that will keep what you're worried about from occurring.
But the thing I've mentioned before is...your example of Joe..and xxxx....they would have a choice of NOT joining the privatized plan IF THEY didn't wish to. A choice they don't have now, the way the system is.
I think the majority of American's are able to handle their own money themselves. Dems want to keep it the way it is to retain the 'power' of using it as a threat each election cycle. And those who believe the government needs to continue to be our Nanny and who thing we can't handle our own money ourselves...are controllers.
--------------
Hey Fred. But I've read that President Bush has said the plan he's offering will not change anything for anyone over the age of 55. So that takes care of the issue for those who are currently retired or will do so in the next 10 years....right?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 17, 2005 06:43 PM ]
posted on February 17, 2005 06:51:14 PM new
Yes, dblfugger...social security. A program that was needed in it's era and it could easily be eliminated for our grandchildrens generation. They could be taught to save their own money themselves....and if they don't then only they would have to suffer the consequences.
---------
KD -
If people that are above a certain income level and don't need it, it shouldn't bother them
Who are you to decide what 'should and shouldn't bother them'? If someone doesn't want it...they can choose, for themselves, to give it up. But have no right to make that decision for all those who want what they were promised.
I don't know how your Canadian Social Insurance works...but we have had this 'promise' since 1935...before then I believe..but it was changed.
There would be all kinds of impeachments of our elected officials should they decide to change the rules of the SS program now. People expect to receive from a program they paid into all their lives. To now tell them...'you don't need it so we're giving it to those who do' ...would not go over well with most American's. We all pay in - we all expect to collect if we live long enough.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 17, 2005 06:58 PM ]
posted on February 17, 2005 07:17:57 PM new
The problem with Social Security is not due to illegals or outsourcing jobs or any other politically oriented crap. It's actually pretty simple. Retirees are living longer and there are fewer paying in.
When Social Security started there were 40 people paying in for every 1 collecting and the average person collected for 10 years. Now there are less than 10 paying in and people are collecting twice as long. Unfortunately we have the largest generation of americans starting to hit retirment age at the same time that a decreasing one hits working age so lets stop laying blame in irrelevent areas and talk about how it gets fixed.
If the average lifespan keeps increasing, then qualification dates are going to have to start being increased as well. Increasing immigration quotas wil also help to bring in working age people who will increase SS contributions.
But the fact remains that at the end of the day, if Social Securty is to survive, it's going to have to take a bigger chunk.
Libra - you might want rethink your Illegal alien theory - since most of them work under false numbers they are paying money in that they will never be able to collect. There was a story about this last year - I believe it was $12 billion that has been paid into the system by illegals.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 17, 2005 07:49:15 PM new
Linda you are correct. That is why he will not increase payroll tax. In order for S.S. to Change those at 55 would be an increase in payroll tax. It would also change for those on retirement now. should it be increased.
posted on February 17, 2005 07:52:38 PM new
Thanks Fred...that's what I've been reading too. I think he's just trying to say 'I'm open to all suggestions, except raising taxes' on the issue of SS.
---------------
Libra - I kind of remember we had a thread here discussing SS and illegals before. Can't pull it up but did find this. Could this be what you were referring to in how illegals affect SS and SSDI, by coming to the US illegally?
posted on February 17, 2005 07:57:01 PM newBecause of the outsourcing of jobs. I.E. mexico. No SS money coming from their. Illegal aliens, none their either. That is due to NAFTA.
Libra, what do illegal aliens and NAFTA outsourcing have to do with each other? Your "logic" is mind boggling.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on February 17, 2005 08:24:12 PM new
Great article Linda.
It's kinda scary when you read all the different scenarios. None of which sound good. Good for them not for us.
Outsourcing is a way for people (US Citizens) in foreign countries to make money. If we didn't allow outsourcing the money would stay here and they would end up paying taxes and SS taxes.
posted on February 17, 2005 08:35:41 PM new
I understand KD....and I'm saying that American's that could receive a [current] maximum SS payment check of $1740 dollars a month, aren't going to be agreeing with your proposal to take it from them to 'fix' a problem that has alternative solutions.
posted on February 18, 2005 06:03:03 AM new
One solution - STOP BORROWING FROM IT to pay for other things. KD, I agree. If you are lucky enough to have a pension that is enough to support you in your retirement years, either your SS benefits should be cut or eliminated. It should be provided to those who need it. It's shameful when you see retired people in Florida living in large homes, driving fancy cars and enjoying boating excursions while another elderly couple has to decide whether they eat or take their medication.
A program that was needed in it's era and it could easily be eliminated for our grandchildrens generation. They could be taught to save their own money themselves....and if they don't then only they would have to suffer the consequences.
That is such an absurd statement that I'm left speechless. Almost. In 1998, the median income for a family of four was $56,061; in 2003 it is $65,093. Taking into consideration the inflation rate, that's hardly a big jump in income. Given the fact that most children will not be able to afford a decent education thanks to cuts in education, I would suspect their earning power to decrease, not increase. Just where do you suppose all this extra money is going to come from so that they can save for their own retirement? And, why should they have to? Like us, they will work their whole lives. They (if we've raised them right) will contribute to society, they will pay taxes, they will raise families. Their reward at the end of their life? If you have your way, either save or eat dog food. Most families I know are lucky to be able to save $50 out of each paycheck. Most can't afford enough life insurance to support their loved ones if they die. What happens if invested money is lost in a stock crash? A depression? Too bad for them then? You have absolutely no social conscious at all. Let me ask you this, did you take the SS benefit when your husband died? You must be doing pretty well because you spend so much time on this board that you can't possibly have to work. Good for you. However, not everyone is you and it's high time you come down off the pedestal you have yourself on.
I've stopped posting to this board as often as I used to because of these kinds of statements. Now that I've had my say, I can once again disappear into the mist. I feel sorry for this country if statements like that one are what we've come to.
Cheryl
"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~ P.J. O'Rourke
posted on February 18, 2005 06:28:24 AM new
Wow Cheryl,...you said a mouth full!!
You know I think you're right about families not being able to save at all, that's why *I think* the bigger problem is a living wage. I mean, there are CEO's and AE's making billions, and the mail clerk is making 8.00 an hour? What do we have here?? But the thing is, both or all of them will be paying into SS for all the years they are working. Hasnt that always been an entitlement? I think thats what Linda is pointing out -- no matter what, you pay into it; the benefit of it is supposed to be yours at retirement.
The other thing I can even personally attest to, is Americans are a group of people that do not like to do without. It's a hard knock to come to that if youre trying to survive in the now, never mind thinking of the far ahead future. I saw this show and this woman brought up this point: why do people eat half a box of cereal, shove it in a cabinet and a month later throw it out and buy a whole new box of cereal? Ok. thats a minute thing. But it's so true. Her point was, eat what you have in the house before you go food shopping again. And Lord knows, I've been guilty of that! Or I've bought canned fruit on sale and it sits there until I give it to the food bank, then everybody's crying there's nothing to eat in this house!! Her whole gig was it can be done if you pay attention to *All* of what youre doing with your money.
Hey, I dont pretend to know what the answers are on the SS issue. We dont care enough about people in this country on the whole. I agree and I'm sorry that offends you so much. I've long ago put up a wall to it and tell myself that's just the way it is (I know thats a song) but thats the truth in many ways.
posted on February 18, 2005 06:50:43 AM newBut how in the world do you expect anyone to be able to answer your question? This whole thing is in the TALKING stages...everyone has been encouraged to offer their suggestions.
Linda, it was a question to undertsand what would happen. If we do go with the individual retirement acounts and people end up drying up their retirement accounts and the governement needs to provide them with additional money, I feel we will be faced with the same situation we are now. I think this individual account idea is the same as the current situation only you are dividing the money amongst several million smaller piles of money instead of having all the money in one place.
I strongly feel the government needs to take a look at why social security is paying out more money that it is taking in before they start to try to "fix" the system. If the basic problem can't be corrected then no matter what plan you have, the result will be the same.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
No matter how good it sounds, what the Bush administration delivers over and over again is another crock of s***.
The people who really need social security can't afford the risks associated with high returns. It's not the case that the stock market can guarantee high returns. If it could, the government could eliminate the deficit by switching it's money into indexed stocks. A slight increase in retirement ages or taxes is a better answer.
posted on February 18, 2005 06:58:13 AM new
Helen, who said it is about investing in high return stocks? I havent followed it that much and why I havent even posted to this thread until now, but my understanding is it would be more of a cautious mutual fund plan and if one wanted to divert it to higher risk funds, they could?
But yeah, that opens a whole nuther can of worms...the people that need it most, would they know what to do, or could they afford the services to advise them on such matters??????
spelling
.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on Feb 18, 2005 06:58 AM ]
posted on February 18, 2005 08:49:57 AM new
cheryl said [in part]
STOP BORROWING FROM IT
I would agree....the IOU's are nothing but government promises...rather than having the 'trust fund' with actual money in it.
If you are lucky enough to have a pension that is enough to support you in your retirement years, either your SS benefits should be cut or eliminated.
I just love these 'socialistic' ideas. Take from those who have also EARNED and paid into SS because YOU determine 'they don't need it'. And you get upset when I call you and KD socialists? LOL
Even the elected ultra-left democrats would NEVER support such a ludicrous idea.
It should be provided to those who need it. It's shameful when you see retired people in Florida living in large homes, driving fancy cars and enjoying boating excursions while another elderly couple has to decide whether they eat or take their medication.
Yep...there's that socialist mantra again.
A program that was needed in that era....
That is such an absurd statement that I'm left speechless.
No surprise there for me. Socialists never saw an entitlement program they didn't love and want to go on forever.
Just where do you suppose all this extra money is going to come from so that they can save for their own retirement?
By doing without some things that aren't 'needs' just wants. Making better decisions for their lives in the first place. But no, I understand socialists believe we should have everything equal....we all are entitled to the same things...whether we earn them or not.
And, why should they have to?
LOL. I understand, talking personal responsibility for our OWN lives is not as good as becoming more and more government dependent, in your views.
If you have your way, either save or eat dog food.
No, not at all. I believe we need to teach our children personal responsiblity....not to do whatever they want in life and then expect someone else to make it better for them....especially the government. Which as we all know is really OTHER taxpayers. They need to learn that their decisions will have consequences to them.
Most families I know are lucky to be able to save $50 out of each paycheck. Well...what can I say? It's Cleveland for crying-out-loud. Take a drive and look around. Look at all the people who have become successful to one degree or another. Did someone GIVE that to them? No...they EARNED it.
What happens if invested money is lost in a stock crash? A depression? Too bad for them then? You have absolutely no social conscious at all.
Accuse me of what you will it doesn't make it true. You get all hot-headed and constantly want more socialism in government, it appears to me. And the left keeps wanting to focus on the stock market to discourage private SS accounts.
If any of you would READ what's being proposed....rather than just flying off the handle...you'd READ that no one has proposed any plan change that won't include safeguards. Period. But when you ignore those facts it makes it so much easier to accuse the 'right' of not caring about others.
Let me ask you this, did you take the SS benefit when your husband died?
No, I am not eligible until I reach age 60.
BUT everyone who pays into the SS system has this protection for their survivor....with differing qualifications. So what?....according to YOU, for some reason, I couldn't be eligible just like everyone else is?
You must be doing pretty well because you spend so much time on this board that you can't possibly have to work. Good for you.
I don't spend any more time that others do here. In your socialistic mind set....should I be forced to work to support others who didn't make the same lifestyle choices we did? And do you know what those even were?
However, not everyone is you and it's high time you come down off the pedestal you have yourself on.
Let's see here now. When I express my opinions I'm on a pedestal....but when you push more socialism...that's what exactly? Surprise, surprise. People can and DO care, people can donate, people don't need government to do it for them....they can do it all by themselves....freely without the government taking from one to give to another.
I've stopped posting to this board as often as I used to because of these kinds of statements.
It's most likely because you can't handle other opinions - that everyone doesn't share your mind think. You don't like being challenged on why you want everything 'equal' for all Americans. When some are willing and do earn it and others think it should just be given to them because they exist and they deserve it.
I feel sorry for this country if statements like that one are what we've come to.
I only speak for myself, of course, not the country. It's NOT a matter of people needed help...it's a matter of just who does it...the individuals, freely, or the government.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 18, 2005 09:15:39 AM new
Helen, neonazis like linduh do only care about themselves. They fail to realize a country is only as strong as it's weakest people. We ALL depend on each other whether we realize it(Democrats) or not (Repugs).
I've provided several good posts about SS but linduh's neocon cultish bush-is-god mentality will never change so she won't read them.
Repugs care about themselves...Democrats realize we all damn well care about each other....united we stand...divided ?....China, Russia, Iran, North Korea start salivating......
posted on February 18, 2005 09:16:50 AM new
dblfugger said [in part]
I think thats what Linda is pointing out--no matter what, you pay into it; the benefit of it is supposed to be yours at retirement.
Exactly. To even think that people who have paid into a system most of their lives...and because they were also responsible enough to save/invest and not rely on the government to take care of them...now they're supposed to forfeit their own SS benefits....is nothing but laughable.
The other thing I can even personally attest to, is Americans are a group of people that do not like to do without.
There have been reports/specials on 'what is poverty in America' type shows...articles. And what is often seen is that this so-called 'living in poverty' really isn't. That it's more like what our grandparents lived like. One example is a whole family used to live in a two bedroom, one bath house. They usually had one car for the whole family. They had tiny closets because they didn't have all the shoes and clothes. They ate more healthly now...didn't eat out so often. The list goes on and on. But basically it's all about 'choices'. Now if the socialists see those living conditions they call it poverty. They whine they don't have more....well...go out and earn it.
I dont pretend to know what the answers are on the SS issue.
I don't either....that's one of the reasons I would support the elimination [in a generation or two] of the whole program.
People can take their own money and put it into Thrift Savings accounts....401k's...just like they do now. No need to support all the overhead it takes to run the SS program. I think it's an obtainable goal...but not one that any politican of either party would EVER suggest.
But those objecting to others being allowed to have the right to place a very small amount of their own funds in the available options....while they could choose not to do so..is just crazy. Or maybe they think the government should just take all the money we earn and tell us how and what we CAN spend it on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 18, 2005 09:33:21 AM new
logansdad said - [again, in part]
If we do go with the individual retirement acounts and people end up drying up their retirement accounts and the governement needs to provide them with additional money, I feel we will be faced with the same situation we are now.
No one can predict what future events we will be faced with, or not. But this is no different than the risk you [collectively] run with putting your money into your 401k or a 'thrift savings'.
I think this individual account idea is the same as the current situation only you are dividing the money amongst several million smaller piles of money instead of having all the money in one place.
Which most investment councelors will tell you is what you should be doing...not putting all your 'eggs' in one basket.
I strongly feel the government needs to take a look at why social security is paying out more money that it is taking in before they start to try to "fix" the system.
This is part of the problem. You are not understanding the problem to begin with. First of all they HAVE found out/ARE aware of the problem....too few paying into the system...too many collecting from it. And they AREN'T paying out more than they're taking in at this point. That has been project to happen in 2018 [or there abouts]. Like Greenspan suggested...any change in this huge system should be done slowly, over a period of time....and we need this time between now and when the system isn't bringing in enough funds to pay benefits...so we do have the time to work it all out.
If the basic problem can't be corrected then no matter what plan you have, the result will be the same.
HUH??? Who said it couldn't be corrected? No one I've heard about. It's all about HOW we DO correct it before it starts going into negative flow.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 18, 2005 09:52:11 AM new
helen - Our Nation was not formed by socialistic values. We were formed to act as individuals and to LIMIT government growth and invasiveness into our personal lives.
I understand you too prefer the socialist platform. But it's NOT the system our Nation/government started with.
------------------
dblfugger - but my understanding is it would be more of a cautious mutual fund plan and if one wanted to divert it to higher risk funds, they could?
Yes, that is what's being suggested. Just like current 401ks and thrift saving accounts work.
the people that need it most, would they know what to do, or could they afford the services to advise them on such matters??????
One proposal is that these funds that would be offered would be ones that have a successful history of making successful investments.
They would be given choices...just like a lot of 401ks offer now.
And, again, there would be 'safeguards' in any program that would be a part of any legislation offered.
I'll offer my husband's 401k as an example. He was offered several choices for where he wanted his money to be placed. One was in a very safe area...bonds..etc which didn't pay as high a return rate as other choice but also didn't present the 'risk' involved with some of the other choices. Then there were 5 choices for investing his funds in medium to high risk performing options.
The employees received information on past performance of each individual 'choice' and were given graphs on their past earning history. They could change their choices one a quarter I believe. Anyway...they could change if one choice wasn't doing well and the others were.
Imo, I think that's why we're not hearing Wall Street jumping up and down about the possibility of these accounts...supporting them...as they're not sure the end legislation will be to their benefit [ie: fees they could charge].
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 18, 2005 10:24:28 AM new
"helen - Our Nation was not formed by socialistic values. We were formed to act as individuals and to LIMIT government growth and invasiveness into our personal lives."
Bush is responsible for the largest expansion of the federal goverment since FDR's administration.
posted on February 18, 2005 10:39:39 AM new
hillbillymo - IF you're referring to the expansion of Medicare, I totally agree.
Because I saw/see Bush as a much better alternative to kerry....doesn't mean I think everything he does is right....contrary to popular belief of the lefties here.
The way I saw it was the dems would have done the same thing, were they in control, only they would have spent more....as that's what they were complaining about. So neither party would have done it the way I would have preferred to see it done.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
The possiblilty that millions of elderly may be left to suffer and fall into poverty because of a mismanaged social security program or a stock market crash is simply not acceptable and will not be tolerated in this country. There is a definite need for a secure, guaranteed income for the elderly. Such concern is not socialism, linda. It's responsible government.
posted on February 18, 2005 10:51:06 AM newwill not be tolerated??? Says who? You?
No one is going to be thrown into poverty. And I don't know what your judgement about age is but this President's suggestion protects anyone age 55 and above.
The REST are being given a CHOICE to CHOOSE whether or not they WISH to participate in a new program.
But I know...you have a HUGE problem with people making decisions for themselves that don't agree with your views and don't have government doing for us what we are quite capable of doing for ourselves.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 18, 2005 10:55:00 AM new
helen - ANY program where the government takes from the taxpayers to pay for benefits of some..or all...is an entitlement program....and by their very nature are socialist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
This topic is 6 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new
