posted on August 28, 2004 05:00:08 AM new
AMERICAN WORKERS PAY GOVERNMENT TAKES. NOW AMERICAN WORKERS GET SCREWED AGAIN. WILL IT EVER STOP? ALREADY IN THE U.S. THE RICH ARE GETTING RICHER WHILE THE AMERICAN WORKER IS GETTING POORER. AGAIN WHEN WILL IT EVER STOP?
JACKSON, Wyo. (Aug. 28) -- For at least the fourth time this year, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has touched the electrified third rail of American politics - Social Security.
AP file
Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remarks by Chairman Greenspan
He did it here in the shadows of the Grand Teton Mountains as Friday's leadoff speaker at a two-day conference about challenges that the global economy faces because of rapidly aging populations.
As he did first in February, during testimony before Congress, and several times since, Greenspan issued his warning that the White House and Congress need to come up quickly with a plan to trim the Social Security and Medicare benefits that 77 million baby boomers are scheduled to receive when they retire.
He said haste is critical. There is no way benefits currently promised can be financed by government, he said, and Americans born in the 20 years after World War II need to be put on notice so they can start putting away extra retirement savings during their working years.
Even under the most optimistic economic assumptions of growth and productivity, government resources will be inadequate to provide the baby boom generation with the level of benefits their parents got, he said.
''If we have promised more than our economy has the ability to deliver, ... as I fear we may have, we must recalibrate our public programs so that pending retirees have time to adjust through other channels,'' he said. ''If we delay, the adjustments could be abrupt and painful.''
The 78-year-old Greenspan, recently confirmed for a fifth term as Fed chairman, suggested a possible fix would be to increase the retirement age for receiving full benefits. It already is on schedule to rise from 65 to 67.
Greenspan, who chaired a commission in 1983 that rescued Social Security from a previous financial crisis, has suggested that Congress look at trimming the annual cost-of-living adjustment retirees receive because the current Consumer Price Index overstates inflation.
Greenspan also has suggested in earlier comments that Congress should look at tying the age of retirement to future increases in life expectancies.
In his speech Friday, he cautioned against trying to close the funding gap simply by raising the payroll taxes that support Social Security and the Medicare programs, saying higher taxes would hurt job creation.
Other speakers at the Jackson conference, sponsored by the Kansas City, Mo., Federal Reserve, echoed Greenspan's comments about dilemmas that aging populations pose for government policy-makers.
While the United States faces a major problem, the situation is even worse in Europe and Japan. Birth rates have declined further than they have in the United States, and the Europeans and Japanese have received less help in bolstering their labor forces with new immigrants.
Anne Krueger, deputy managing director of the Washington-based International Monetary Fund, said poor countries also will face serious problems with aging populations toward the middle of this century. She said countries such as India and Brazil must act now to firm up their fiscal positions to cope with rising pension costs.
posted on August 28, 2004 08:58:41 AM new
We've pretty much known that for years haven't we? But it's something people just don't want to face.
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
posted on August 28, 2004 09:13:17 AM new
bunnicula said it all. "It has been happening for years".
Some people can't get over it that this is not a NEW problem. SS is not a retirement plan, maybe back when it was founded in the 40's it was but not now with the high cost of everything. We were told in the 80's that we should not depend on SS and it will not provide enough money to survive on. What did the people do, ignore it, If a 20 year old would put away $1,000 a year for retirement they will have a million dollars when they reach retirement age. You talk about the American workers getting screwed they are screwing them selves if they think that the measly sum taken out of the paycheck will keep them going during retirement. This is the reason for IRA's, Roth IRA's. 401k, so that a small investment in one of those could bring a better life during retirement. Work in a place for over 5 years and you are vested to at least get a little amount. Who is gouging the American Public? Business, home builders, car makers,
they are ones that are charging the outrageous prices. The government is trying to tell you that SS is not a retirement plan, but a supplement to the ones the American workers should be investing in.
posted on August 28, 2004 09:26:25 AM new
A lot of people had to postpone their retirement after their 401k plans took a big hit a couple of years ago. And I know the stock market plunge hurt mine! This is one reason I am opposed to the idea of investing my social security in the stock market as Bush proposed.
I am not one who plans to rely on social security for retirement, either. I have a 401k, investments from an inheritance, and a pension from my employer. Well, I might have a pension if we can keep the politicians' hands off it--it is from PERS and for years politicians have wanted to "borrow" from PERS to take care of other problems in our state! And then, of course, there is the fact that PERS funds are also invested in the market--and were also hurt by the drop.
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
posted on August 28, 2004 06:37:33 PM new
"This is one reason I am opposed to the idea of investing my social security in the stock market as Bush proposed."
There has never been a time in history when stock has not given the best return as an investment.
posted on August 28, 2004 06:51:05 PM new
desqurill, I had a co plan with matching funds in a diversified mutal fund and it did really well back in the late 80ties. That was the best investment I ever had! It always made money. When I left the company I cashed it out (bad move, but young at the time) - was able to pay off some cc's and a car note with the growth and what they matched for me. I'd do it again in a heartbeat with a good broker.
..
..
~~ Keep thy heart with all diligence for out of it are the issues(forces)of life..Proverbs 4:23~~
posted on August 29, 2004 11:11:36 AM newThere has never been a time in history when stock has not given the best return as an investment.
Simply not true. The stock market ON AVERAGE gives the best return, however there are periods of downturn that can last a decade or even longer.
If the market is down when the baby boomers retire, then you have the same result as with Social Security.
Also the Baby Boomer Social Security issue will only last around 20 years and then the system is back to surpluses, in fact projected surpluses are larger than ever before.
Greenspan and others are looking for a way to pump up the stock market.
posted on August 29, 2004 07:18:22 PM newAnd to say that the market has been down for 3 years so you lost money is silly since a RETIREMENT account is invested for DECADES.
Not silly at all if the downturn occurs when you wish to retire.
There are thousands of people who had to put off retirement due to the last market downturn.
