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.
"A[i]mericans collectively are losing billions of dollars a year out of their retirement accounts because they're paying excessive fees,
LOL you pay excessive fees to the government, money that could have gone into your 401k, yet you want higher taxes. LOL.. Don't you get it? both big government and big banks see you as a piggy bank.
not first order of business but certainly at the top was to try to find a way to make SS solvent. There you go picking up the democrat baseball bat lying about what Republicans wanted to do.
Mr. Bushes approach was to take 2% of SS funds and move them to private accounts that government couldn't take and use for everything else government does.
for those reading (because I know odanny here knows it)
Every dime you pay into SS goes into the general fund to fund all the nonsense about government you don't agree with. You get a "promise" from the government to give you your SS back at some later date.
currently Social Security is 90 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities.
democrats use the word "privatize" to make people think republicans want to hand your money to wall street fat cats.
what republicans have been fighting for is taking YOUR SS money away from Washington DC Fatcat pork loving politicians and handing it back to YOU.
One note on the above.
I stated that SS is 90 trillion in unfunded Liabilities.
That actual number is 14 trillion.
the total US. Unfunded liability, is 98 trillion.
the facts on SS are clear. Democrats have used it as a political baseball bat to beat the American people into submission. SS is now in the position that its about to run out of money because DEMOCRATS would never allow it to be reformed in meaningful ways that would make it a good thing for elderly people.
All Social Security does is secure POVERTY for those who rely on it. And THAT is the fault of the democrat party.
Never?
Reality is a mixed bag.
The last major reform occurred in 1983 when Congress was a Democrat majority. The Greenspan Commission had to find an offset to tax cuts benefitting high income earners the most and increasing the EITC benefit for low income earners.
Greenspan sold Congress on reform and increasing Payroll Taxes and increasing the full retirement age. It also created a $ 2.7 Trillion surplus that, no coincidence, was available to offset tax cuts. True reform at the time would have directed future surpluses into marketable treasury securities, not unmarketable special obligation bonds, the opposite of Greenspan's intent.
The Republicans held the majority in Congress in 1995-2000 and then again in 2003-2006.
The public and most Democrats in Congress did not support the 2005 Bush Admin plan that was being sold under a banner of privatizing Social Security but was so much more. Bush was unable to get an adequate number of Republicans who held the majority to support his reform. So the can continued to be kicked forward.
Surplus in the SS fund are required to be invested in Treasuries. Initially, this included a mixed bag of marketable and unmarkable special obligation bonds. Since 1980, all surpluses have been invested in un marketable bonds with little consideration given to the long term impact.
The amendments to SS made in 1983 were devised by the Greenspan Commmission and sold to Congress as a method of ensuring a 30 year surplus of $2.7 Trillion. In reality, it created a new source of general fund income to offset tax cuts, especially on high income earners and the Earned Income Tax Credit for low income earners.
Middle class- not so much. This act also enabled SS to be taken off the unified budget.
Bush 2 campaigned on taking SS private. His first admin deferred it due to 9/11 and the War. He campaigned again on the promise to take SS private during his second term and he made a huge effort to do so. His pitch included:
Limiting benefits for the wealthy
Indexing benefits to prices instead of wages
Increasing the full retirement age
Discouraging the taking of benefits early with penalties
Gradually and Eventually allowing people to invest up to 1/3 of their balance into their choice of 5 diversified funds chosen by government.
The Dems opposed and Republicans were a mixed bag. The more Bush talked about it, the more unpopular it became with the public. Gallup showed a 65% disapproval rating before Bush Pulled the plug.
The SS Trust Fund will exhaust surpluses by 2035 and the shortfall is projected to be about 1.2% of GDP.
The Disability Trust Fund is expected to exhaust surpluses in 2016.
The options remain the same, a combination of
Raising Payroll Taxes on all or just higher incomes, and/ or
Raising full retirement age, and/ or
Reducing benefits
I don't understand how there can be so many people that refuse to believe that SS is unsustainable in it's current form. These people think it's a right-wing conspiracy or something.
As SS is now, I'll begin to be eligible at about 2035, so I'm not to happy to be funding the Boomer's SS, while I'm likely to see a serious cut in benefits right at retirement age.
If you put your money in something with unreasonable fees that's your fault. There are plenty of funds with low fees. I realize the concept of personal responsibility is foreign to you. People like you need the government to wipe your backsides.
Individual responsibly shouldn't be a code word for free reign to cheat scam people who are stupid trusting or both.
I don't understand how there can be so many people that refuse to believe that SS is unsustainable in it's current form. These people think it's a right-wing conspiracy or something.
As SS is now, I'll begin to be eligible at about 2035, so I'm not to happy to be funding the Boomer's SS, while I'm likely to see a serious cut in benefits right at retirement age.
Thus the reason why nothing got changed and if the majority of your generation feels the same nothing will change then either.
The last major reform occurred in 1983 when Congress was a Democrat majority. The Greenspan Commission had to find an offset to tax cuts benefitting high income earners the most and increasing the EITC benefit for low income earners.
Greenspan sold Congress on reform and increasing Payroll Taxes and increasing the full retirement age. It also created a $ 2.7 Trillion surplus that, no coincidence, was available to offset tax cuts. True reform at the time would have directed future surpluses into marketable treasury securities, not unmarketable special obligation bonds, the opposite of Greenspan's intent.
The Republicans held the majority in Congress in 1995-2000 and then again in 2003-2006.
The public and most Democrats in Congress did not support the 2005 Bush Admin plan that was being sold under a banner of privatizing Social Security but was so much more. Bush was unable to get an adequate number of Republicans who held the majority to support his reform. So the can continued to be kicked forward.
Democrats in 1983 were nothing like the insane left wing extremists that make up today's Democrat Party.
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.
