Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"In fact, when GW couldn't get approval for his plan to invest SS money in the stock market he dropped it like a hot potato. Or "potatoe" if your a Quayle fan!"
Bush was going to borrow 100 billion dollars a year for the "personal" accounts which would be forced to annuitized. Obama has come up with a similar proposal. He wants to force 401Ks to be annuitized by age 45. In either case, the insurance companies would get a huge windfall in administrative fees. There's a big push to corporatize the government. Have the government run for the benefit of major industries by using the government to impose mandates on individuals for the benefit of major industries, such as insurance, banking, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, defense, etc.
obama isn't that much different from bush. i don't know if people see that or not, but i certainly hope so.
pro war-check
pro illegal immigration-check
pro big spending-check
pro bailouts-check
pro banker bonuses-check
pro raising the debt ceiling-check
pro federal reserve getting more powers-check
pro cap and trade tax-check
constitution is just a piece of paper-check
against any real wall street reform-check
against any real credit card reform-check
against punishing the criminals on wall street-check
this is because they both work for the same government.
Last edited by floridasandy; 04-06-2010 at 01:03 PM..
I believe that social security should be done away with...But anyone else should start saving there own money into roth ira's and become dependent upon themselves
Maybe in an ideal world, people will actually take it upon themselves to think long-term to take care of themselves. However, in reality, the vast majority don't save enough for retirement. Those who do know often know nothing about investing. Those that do invest, have been burned by wall street greed and the recent stock market collapse. It really does take a lot of courage to stick with it.
Without social security, you will see a majority of future retirees basically have no money to survive on. I think social security will be in place because future retirees/voters would rather have a higher tax on younger workers to save it than to forfeit an income stream.
Even if nothing is done with SS , it was reported the current system could still pay at least 75% of the benefit schedule to retirees
i am sure you got that figure from the trustee report, which was debunked back in the 2000 analysis:
Three years ago, the Trustees projected that, by 2040, Social Security would cost 17.8 percent of payroll, would be running an operating deficit of 4.6 percent of payroll, and would be able to pay just 74 cents of every dollar of promised benefits. Today, they project that, by 2040, Social Security will cost 17.9 percent of payroll, will be running an operating deficit of 4.7 percent of payroll, and will be able to pay-you guessed it-just 74 cents of every dollar of promised benefits. The unchanged outlook is not surprising, since there have been no major revisions in the demographic and economic assumptions that determine Social Security's long-term cost. Yes, the Trustees have nudged up their "ultimate" fertility and real-wage growth rates. But they have also nudged up their assumption about future longevity. Taken together, the changes are a wash. What then accounts for the trust funds' eight-year reprieve? The answer lies almost entirely in the near-term economy. Low unemployment and strong wage growth keep boosting workers' taxable payroll, and along with it Social Security's temporary operating surpluses. Over the next fifteen years, the Trustees now project that surplus Social Security tax revenue will total $1.2 trillion, nearly four times what they were projecting three years ago. The extra cash, along with higher real interest rates, is swelling Social Security's trust-fund coffers-and pushing out its bankruptcy date.
The problem is that the trust funds consist of a stack of IOUs. They constitute claims against Treasury, but not economic assets that can defray future costs. As soon as Social Security's operating surpluses turn into deficits in 2015, (actually now, not the year 2015 reported in 2000) according to the latest Trustees' report-Congress will have to raise taxes, cut other spending, or borrow from the public to pay current-law benefits. Ironically, the more IOUs the trust funds possess, the larger the burden on the budget and economy.
Bush was going to borrow 100 billion dollars a year for the "personal" accounts which would be forced to annuitized. Obama has come up with a similar proposal. He wants to force 401Ks to be annuitized by age 45. In either case, the insurance companies would get a huge windfall in administrative fees. There's a big push to corporatize the government. Have the government run for the benefit of major industries by using the government to impose mandates on individuals for the benefit of major industries, such as insurance, banking, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, defense, etc.
I do not know enough about the implications of this plan to comment, although I do not like the sound of it. And I doubt it will gain any traction.
Still, my original point stands...not confined to any particular administration or political party!
My over-arching belief in such matters is that as long as both political parties take everything out of context and use any attempt at change for political attacks, there will be little progress on all fronts!
I doubt there will be any SS when I'm retirement age.
Nothing to worry about!
One way or another you'll get your SS check.
To keep those checks coming, we'll first sell off the Hawaiian Islands, one by one to the Chinese. Then we'll sell off the Aleutian Islands, one by one.
Then the western half of Alaska, then the northern part.
By the time we get to selling off Washington and Oregon, it will be 2060.
To keep those checks coming, we'll first sell off the Hawaiian Islands, one by one to the Chinese. Then we'll sell off the Aleutian Islands, one by one.
Then the western half of Alaska, then the northern part.
By the time we get to selling off Washington and Oregon, it will be 2060.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
Word is that Mexico wants Texas back. I say we go for it.
This is exactly what I was going to suggest. The U.S. has enough territory to start selling it. This will be sure money in the pocket to solve other problems as well. We can sell Puerto Rico, Texas and California. Once the bills have been paid, it should invest in worthwhile land somewhere in Africa, Iran, or Mexico. (Depending on weather they want to invest in crops, oil, or diamonds). The U.S. government is simply not putting the money they have into any kind of investment, making them truly, incredibly dumb. Everybody knows that if you don't invest, you're not going to have any money to last you.
The elderly are the richest group of people amoung us. They have had their whole lives to invest, save, pay off their homes, and build assets. So why do the rest of us have to pay them. Shaker281 said he has several retirement funds but still wants to collect his "contribution." The problem with that is that his contribution has been spent. And now he wants ours to replace it, even though he doesn't need it. Thats why this is a ponzi scheme and it can't continue forever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
