But then ... "Currently the big fight is Social Security reform. The official Congressional Democratic [sic] leadership position is that there is no problem that a modest soak-the-rich tax increase couldn't fix. Well, as the current unfunded liability of Social Security is $3.7 trillion, we know with precision the minimum level of tax increase needed to fill that void -- $3.7 trillion. That would be the largest tax increase since ... well, since tax increases were invented by the pharaohs at the dawn of civilization. And we wouldn't even have a bunch of pointy buildings to show for it." --Tony Blankley

I don't like that, either. True, lower-wage earners pay more in FICA than they do in income taxes--that was true for me until a few years ago. I've read that the top income bracket for calculating FICA is about $89,000.

Instead of soaking the rich, I would rather make FICA a flat tax. What do you think?

I'd rather phase it out completely. Let the old folks like me get ours since we have paid all our lives. Let the young folks invest a portion privately, increase the private portion every year and gradually ween the people off the dole. If I had been able to keep all my FICA over the years and properly invest it, I would be able to retire now and fairly well off person.

I don't like that, either. True, lower-wage earners pay more in FICA than they do in income taxes--



I remember the first time I earned a paycheck. The first words out of my mouth were:


"Who is FICA and why the FICK did they take all my money!?"

:popcorn:

I support Lindsey Graham's proposal to increase the salary cap for FICA from $89,000 to $200,000 while reducing the rate from a total 12.5% to about 11.9%. This is suppose to raise close to half a trillion over ten years...sounds decent to me. This should be combined with tying benefits to inflation for higher earners, an index of inflation and wage increases for middle earners, and strictly wage increases for low earners.

I'd rather phase it out completely. Let the old folks like me get ours since we have paid all our lives. Let the young folks invest a portion privately, increase the private portion every year and gradually ween the people off the dole. If I had been able to keep all my FICA over the years and properly invest it, I would be able to retire now and fairly well off person.
:yeahthat: But people like me are going to take it in the azz. Under 55, but over 40 and not enough time to get another retirement together. So I guess I'm screwed.

I remember the first time I earned a paycheck. The first words out of my mouth were:


"Who is FICA and why the ---- did they take all my money!?"
:killingme

...cut it out. You are held to a higher standard. You are not allowed to be stupid. Only once in awhile.

Social Security is DEAD and NOTHING will save it because of one simple, crushing, immovable fact: Birthrates.

Couples average right around 2 kids. That's one kid to pay for EACH parents retirement. When most people enter Social Security age they may have some of their grankids starting to reach an age where they can help but they will be in early career and not making big dollars.

Birth rates are going to continue to drop meaning less paying in. People will live longer meaning more drain. People are waiting longer to start having kids; more strain.

Any plan that does not being and end with finding an age you need to plan on saving your own money, is a bigger scam than the crippled old ponzii scheme SS always has been.

Do some figuring. Think about it. And quit this 'eat the rich' crap for the same reason; bad math. Eat the poor. There's more of them.

SS IS OVER. It's just a matter of how long we let it rot before we bury it.

I'd rather phase it out completely. Let the old folks like me get ours since we have paid all our lives.

Oh, you and the legion of baby booming bastards haven't paid nearly enough. In a about 15-20 years, the Xers will being doing a bonfire dance around your Soc. Sec. and Medicare benefits, especially after their retirement accounts go up in Wall Street smoke.

Well we just seem to disagree about the value of Social Security...I believe that Social Security is a terrific social program that allows all Americans a safety net (insurance, if you may) for their retirement. It is the strongest measure for our nation against widespread poverty for the elderly (which we experienced for years prior the New Deal). I understand that many of you would like to invest that FICA money in your own choice of stocks and bonds...but I believe that your investment should be on top of what you already put into Social Security. At least that is the most effective way to develop a sound retirement in my opinion...three foundations: Social Security, pensions, savings. I think that the government should allow people to set aside more tax-free money for investment...

My problem is that if we rid of the nation of Social Security, too many people would have too much money to freely do whatever they wanted with. I understand that the American people deserve as much freedom as possible in their investment choices, but the fact is that our nation has an anemic savings rate. Without Social Security taxes being diverted and with savings lagging, our nation would be prime for economic troubles for the elderly.

Therefore, I believe very strongly that we should reform Social Security to increase its long-term solvency. The creation of private accounts would not do this...close to $1 trillion would be diverted from the current system which would cause the pending deficits for the program to occur before the current 2018 framework. That is something that highly worries me because increasing the debt of this nation is something we need to run away from as soon as possible.

Thus, we are forced to make tough decisions and pick between increased taxes and reduced benefits. Like I stated earlier, the Graham plan with the tax cap increase and the reduced rate would be a good start. Combining this with the new benefit scheme would also reduce overall benefits paid out while ensuring that lower income seniors maintain their current level of benefits are receive greater protection for poverty (these workers rely almost exclusively on Social Security benefits for their retirements; they amount to 25% of the population receiving benefits). I would also like to add my support for the ending of the practice of spending excess payroll taxes on non-Social Security expenditures.

...is this mic on???

RR!

I believe that Social Security is a terrific social program
Fine. I used to believe in Santa.


if we rid of the nation of Social Security
It's not 'if', it's 'when'. IT IS NO LONGER FEASIBLE.

too many people would have too much money to freely do whatever they wanted with
Perish the thought!


we are forced to make tough decisions and pick between increased taxes and reduced benefits.
Forced to make decisions that will do NOTHING to save a failed program?
How about we 'force' ourselves to make some decisions that'll meet the itent of SS, old age supplamental and disabiltiy insurance?

Come on, face it. Look at the numbers. Look at the reality of birthrates.

You wanna raise the payroll taxable ceiling. Then reduce benefits on these very same people. Then, of course, tell them they don't need it at all.

Doesn't this make your brain scream?

I bring this up for clarity. Social Security does not have Constitutional authority. That said, it is a failed program. Most people get a negative return now. The ROI is certainly lower than you could get with CDs. If anyone with any business sense whatsoever had a choice, they would not invest in SS. RR, you will certainly get a negative return if you live to receive SS and SS is still a viable program (I don't think it will be).

I bring this up for clarity. Social Security does not have Constitutional authority. That said, it is a failed program. Most people get a negative return now. The ROI is certainly lower than you could get with CDs. If anyone with any business sense whatsoever had a choice, they would not invest in SS. RR, you will certainly get a negative return if you live to receive SS and SS is still a viable program (I don't think it will be).
There are a whole lot of good Americans that are financially stupid people that would end up being beggars without SS. There would be a LOT of them. It is a very sad fact but that is what it is, a fact. What would you do with these people that for one reason or another, have not prepared for their own future?

What would you do with these people that for one reason or another, have not prepared for their own future?

Send them to France? :shrug:

There are a whole lot of good Americans that are financially stupid people that would end up being beggars without SS. There would be a LOT of them. It is a very sad fact but that is what it is, a fact. What would you do with these people that for one reason or another, have not prepared for their own future?

Charles, we're alreay in violation of the Constitution and we already TAKE 15% of everybody's paycheck up to $90,000 gross.

Having said that, there are endless things we could do to 'enforce' savings.

It would be a simple matter of setting up a 'glide path' of 'here, Joe Dirt, is what you would have been getting for SS.'

The IRS already does an annaul fiscal checkup to make sure the feds got theirs, so, we do an annual checkup to see that you're saving OK.

People could put it in their homes. T bills. Anything.

Folks who aren't cutting it still can fall back on the old system. That's fine.

Most people will be out of the system and doing much better.

What would you do with these people that for one reason or another, have not prepared for their own future?
Pull their feeding tubes and let them starve to death.

Pull their feeding tubes and let them starve to death.

OK. Good. That's ONE idea. Now, class, how about one where the patient can actually play some golf or go on a world tour of every K MART in their sunset years?

What say an individuals SS is directed to pay their mortgage? Someone making $30k would have perhaps an extra $300 a month which could be the difference between renting and home ownership, which is the largest single retirement asset most people have.

Send them to France...good, I kinda like that...

More?

There are a whole lot of good Americans that are financially stupid people that would end up being beggars without SS. There would be a LOT of them. It is a very sad fact but that is what it is, a fact. What would you do with these people that for one reason or another, have not prepared for their own future?Nothing.

It is not the government's duty to provide for the financial success or security of any person including me. The federal government has become one big money handout machine. The value comes from somewhere and it is not the government. The government has no product and has no value added. The government is an absorber of funds.

If there were no income tax and no FICA or OASDI and there was a VAT, then taxation would be based on what you spend and would be equal by percentage. The United States is about equality isn't it? I know, not really anymore, but it should be. It has been estimated that the income tax system could be replace by an 11.5% VAT with no loss of revenue to the feds. If you spend a dollar, you pay 11.5 cents in tax. If you spend $100,000,000 you pay $11,500,000 in tax. No forms, no deductions, just you spend it you pay the tax applied to business and individuals alike. Again, no business deductions for VAT paid like there are for sales tax paid. Simple, straight forward, and fair. Make it clear that people have to provide for their own retirement. Remember the story of the tortoise and the hare or the grasshopper and the ant? There are lessons in those stories that people need to take to heart.

Personal responsibility, it is rare in the United States anymore. People need to be responsible for themselves, for their actions, for their well being.

My problem is that if we rid of the nation of Social Security, too many people would have too much money to freely do whatever they wanted with.

:twitch:


I understand that the American people deserve as much freedom as possible in their investment choices


:CognitiveDissonence:

Social Security would be in perfectly fine shape today if Democrats and Republicans would have NEVER raided the Trust Fund. I believe that if we stopped the government from doing that now, it would be perfectly feasible.

I don't see how Social Security, which has made elderly poverty below the rate of poverty for the general population, can be considered misguided. I fear that if we just left it all up to the individuals themselves, who are inundated upon with requests to buy this, pay later, then our nation would be in the perfect position for having more indebted elders in poverty (and they would then get on the welfare dole). So, frankly, I would prefer President Bush's proposal for Social Security reform rather than get rid of it entirely or phase it out.

Social Security would be in perfectly fine shape today if Democrats and Republicans would have NEVER raided the Trust Fund. I believe that if we stopped the government from doing that now, it would be perfectly feasible.But have you ever heard of a politician that once had the purse strings opened refused to put their hands in the purse? There have been a few, even in our time, but very few. Democrats have never seen a tax they didn't like. Republicans are not much better. With the two major parties, it is a matter of whether we get humongous out of control spending or big out of control spending. It is still out of control and will be as long as we have entitlement programs like SS and welfare. Neither should exist.

Germany is a huge social welfare state and is drowning in debt. Did you read or heard about this? 'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

<script src="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/NetGravity/mpu.js;sessionid=VVCEAF4LYMAGZQFIQMGCM54AVCBQUJVC" language="javascript"></script> <script language=\"\&quot;\&quot;\&quot;JavaScript\&quot;\&quot;\&quot;\" src="http://ads.telegraph.co.uk/js.ng/site=news&spaceid=mpu&logstatus=f&transactionID=1111257225570&Section=news/international_news/europe/germany&view=details&xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.xml"></script>Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners – who must pay tax and employee health insurance – were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.

The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe.

She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her "profile'' and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise that she was calling a brothel.

Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.

... rest of story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.xml) We could get there.

:patriot: :cheers: :howdy:

Pull their feeding tubes and let them starve to death.
:nono:
Very un-christian.

:nono:
Very un-christian.
:spank: :nono: and you would know this how :confused:

post next time and date when you walk on water :whistle:

:nono:
Very un-christian.
I guess the sarcasm dripping off of my comment missed you completely.

I guess the sarcasm dripping off of my comment missed you completely.
Your aim was OK, that sarcasm went both ways.

Your aim was OK, that sarcasm went both ways.
Oh I know that, which is why your points didn't advance any deeper in to the red. :biggrin:

:coffee:

Oh I know that, which is why your points didn't advance any deeper in to the red. :biggrin:
That was the low IQ crustacean exercising his pincer.

:snacks: That was the low IQ crustacean exercising his pincer.

Charles, we're alreay in violation of the Constitution and we already TAKE 15% of everybody's paycheck up to $90,000 gross.

Having said that, there are endless things we could do to 'enforce' savings.

It would be a simple matter of setting up a 'glide path' of 'here, Joe Dirt, is what you would have been getting for SS.'

The IRS already does an annaul fiscal checkup to make sure the feds got theirs, so, we do an annual checkup to see that you're saving OK.

People could put it in their homes. T bills. Anything.

Folks who aren't cutting it still can fall back on the old system. That's fine.

Most people will be out of the system and doing much better.
If the above was meant in seriousness then I wholeheartedly agree. The amendment guys answer of "nothing" is the wrong answer.

If the above was meant in seriousness then I wholeheartedly agree. The amendment guys answer of "nothing" is the wrong answer.
:boo: :bday: :bday:

undefinedLMFAO :killingme

The amendment guys answer of "nothing" is the wrong answer.



Sez u.

I agreed with him.

Sez u.

I agreed with him.
I hope you get crabs.

:yeahthat:

I hope you get crabs.



Are you hitting on me?

Sorry dude. I'm married.

If the above was meant in seriousness then I wholeheartedly agree

It is WRONG to have extra Constitutional policies because we have an amendment procedure. It means there is no law, not really.

It is wrong to violate the Constitution as we do so often, such as mis-interpeting both the 1st and 2nd amendments.

Having said that, 'it is what it is'. One of the reasons for vehement opposition to SS reform that amounts to more than tinkering is because of the constitutional quicksand it rests on. Do to much remodeling and the whole thing may come down.

When we start saying 'hey, we can make people put their SS payroll tax into their mortgage or this or that' the legality is bound to come up, nevermind it may sound good.

It's no different than slavery or abortion; things many people wanted and NEED to be accepted as matter of fact because they cannot stand up to common sense or, this should scare everyone, the Constitution.

Getting things in place that have not passed Constitutional muster is hard work. But, if it won't pass the amendment process and you really want it, like FDR did, well, any port in a storm. He tried retiring the entire Supreme Court to get his way.

Imagine if today some politician said 'Look, we have SS, right? Everybodys for that, right? We have the right to choose, right? Everybody is for that. So, listen. Isn't food MUCH more important than retirement or abortion? I mean, you gotta live to even get to retirement and you gotta eat to live, right? So, here's what we do. We take 15% from everybody's paycheck and set it aside for food. We give people a monthly check for food, they take it to the store.
It's a minumum security blanket! Hoo ray!"

That's fine. IF IT PASSES Constitutional amendment.

Otherwise, nice idea, can't do it.

We all sit around and pretend that SS is OK. That abortion is OK. They're not. Not until they pass muster. In the mean time, they mean, again, there really is no law, only 'common knowledge'.

Think about it.

:nono:
Very un-christian.
Well, since you mentioned it...the Christian thing to do would be to take care of the person. Churches do that kind of thing. The Christian thing to do would not be building a massive government controlled system to take care of them. Charity is far more efficient and effective at the local level becuase it is easy to tailor it to suit the need. National-level charity is just stupid.

If there were no income tax and no FICA or OASDI and there was a VAT, then taxation would be based on what you spend and would be equal by percentage. The United States is about equality isn't it? I know, not really anymore, but it should be. It has been estimated that the income tax system could be replace by an 11.5% VAT with no loss of revenue to the feds.
I've written before about my preference for eliminating income taxes in favor of a national sales tax.

Stupid question--why is Social Security unconstitutional?

I've written before about my preference for eliminating income taxes in favor of a national sales tax.

Stupid question--why is Social Security unconstitutional?Read what the founders like Jefferson, Madison, and the others said about the Constitution for the answer. The Cliff's Notes version is the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to provide for a retirement fund. The "general welfare" clause that politicians are so prevalent to cite is bounded by the stipulated powers ceded to the federal government by the states. The power to bestow benevolence (charity) was not one of them.

Read what the founders like Jefferson, Madison, and the others said about the Constitution for the answer. The Cliff's Notes version is the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to provide for a retirement fund. The "general welfare" clause that politicians are so prevalent to cite is bounded by the stipulated powers ceded to the federal government by the states. The power to bestow benevolence (charity) was not one of them.
Jeff says,

Actually, if you consider viewpoints of all the founders (including Hamilton) you will find that they were just as divided as many are today as to the general welfare provision of the Constitution. Considering that the Social Security Act passed the test of the Supreme Court in 1937 by a vote of 7-2 in Helvering versus Davis it would seem that the broader definition of Hamilton has prevailed.

Actually, if you consider viewpoints of all the founders (including Hamilton) you will find that they were just as divided as many are today as to the general welfare provision of the Constitution. Considering that the Social Security Act passed the test of the Supreme Court in 1937 by a vote of 7-2 in Helvering versus Davis it would seem that the broader definition of Hamilton has prevailed.Still doesn't mean that it is was the actual intention of the Constitution that was passed by the states. The Supreme Court has gotten more liberal with every appointment.

Jeff says,Just because your intellect is better with a picture editor than doing actual research does not mean that you can keep up with the conversation with trite picture edits. Please try to keep up. Would you like us to go slower for you?

We can argue constitutionality of the Social Security program all that we want, but that battle was fought a long time ago and it has already been won by the pro-constitutional folks. The debate should revolve around how to increase the solvency of the program. Just my opinion...

We can argue constitutionality of the Social Security program all that we want, but that battle was fought a long time ago and it has already been won by the pro-constitutional folks. The debate should revolve around how to increase the solvency of the program. Just my opinion...Your right except for the "pro-constitutional folks". It was won by the people who want to have government do everything for everybody so they can have control over everything folks.

As to the solvency of SS, it will never be solvent in my opinion, so argue your hearts out. SS is dead; people just don't know it yet.

The "strict construction doctrine" wasn't necessarily the intent of the Constitution any more then the "implied power doctrine".

And now as I hear thunder I am going into lightning protect mode and shutting down.

The failure of Social Security doesn't lie so much in the principle, or in the taxation system. It's simply, unavoidable demographics.

We will have two or fewer persons paying IN to SS for every person taking OUT of SS. And it will get worse. You can't tax half the country to pay to the other half. It's impossible.

If I'd realized when I first started paying into this damned thing that I could've been rich just taking 15% of my own money and investing it - instead of dumping it into a hole call SS ..................

Correct if I am wrong but I thought that 7.5% was taking out of your income (up to $89,000) while the other 7.5% was matched by your employer. So it really isn't a 15% tax on your paycheck now is it?

I understand the demographics argument. We can manipulate the program so that those demographics do not hurt the system as much as it will under the current system. Perhaps increase the retirement age with increases in life expectation? Stop paying out benefits to people who have large pensions and investment? Just some ideas, but the demographics issue can be overcome.

The employer payment is on behalf of the employee and I see where it could be considered the employees just as easily as I see it being solely an employer contribution. Regardless of that the numbers paying in are dwindling and the numbers receiving benefit are growing. There is a point of breakdown coming and something needs to be done or we will get to a point where the non-planning will never be able to retire or we tax the younger workers to a point of not being able to live.

Perhaps a purge of everyone over the age of 85, think of all we will save.

Perhaps we should look at the distribution of Social Security funds. The total funds payed into the system, since its inception, and how/where the federal government has dispursed those funds?

Just a thought.

Perhaps we should look at the distribution of Social Security funds. The total funds payed into the system, since its inception, and how/where the federal government has dispursed those funds?

Just a thought.


I don't think the taxpayers are going to like that answer.

RR,

You said "Stop paying out benefits to people who have large pensions and investment?" well; here is my issue with that. Social Security seems to benefit those who didn't plan for their future, more so, than those who did, is it fair for say someone like me, who will get a pension from the state in another 12 1/2 years, has also set aside funds in a 401K and a deferred compensation program, who paid in the piggy to get nothing at the end whatsoever?


The failure of Social Security doesn't lie so much in the principle, or in the taxation system. It's simply, unavoidable demographics.

We will have two or fewer persons paying IN to SS for every person taking OUT of SS. And it will get worse. You can't tax half the country to pay to the other half. It's impossible.

If I'd realized when I first started paying into this damned thing that I could've been rich just taking 15% of my own money and investing it - instead of dumping it into a hole call SS ..................

No doubt :yay:

I've planned for my future without one single consideration to social security in that mix. I just think it is doomed to fail or the benefit will be greatly reduced.

Correct if I am wrong but I thought that 7.5% was taking out of your income (up to $89,000) while the other 7.5% was matched by your employer. So it really isn't a 15% tax on your paycheck now is it?

What's the difference? Your employer has to 'pay' it, even if you work less than 20 hours a week at minimum wage, whether he has a retirement plan or not. If it did not exist, he wouldn't have to pay it at all. Fact is, 15% percent of the moneys paid on your behalf go into a federal retirement system which pays as we go, rather than invested over time like every other retirement plan in the universe. So we have, effectively, a Ponzi scheme which depends on making sure there are enough suckers at the bottom to keep supporting the top. If the top gets too big in a Ponzi scheme, as it always does, it collapses.

Moving the age won't fly in the U.S. - people expect to retire in their 60's. Only a fraction of the U.S. survived to 65 back in the days it was implemented - a comparable age today would be more like 75, just slightly past the average life span. And it's not practical either, because although people live longer, they're not really able to work well past current retirement age, typically.

And although 'soaking the rich' - more or less denying SS benefits to persons above a certain tax bracket has its appeal to the typical class warfare advocate - it becomes another tax to pay the poor on those who pay the most into it. Rather than get something for your taxes, the rich will absolutely get nothing on what they pay into it. And that's just wrong.

And we're having this discussion because the simple, intelligent solution to it all is to create a normal, invested retirement plan, and Democrats want to continue to put it on life support - this crazy, insane scheme which has always been bad. WHY support something insane when a simple solution is so obvious, that nearly everyone who actually plans for retirement does it that way?

My problem is that if we rid of the nation of Social Security, too many people would have too much money to freely do whatever they wanted with.You did not say that.

What's funny is that rich liberals, who are the most vocal opponents of SS, don't seem to be standing in line to give up their money. Barbra Streisand could sell ONE of her homes, and keep a thousand retirees in the gravy. But she doesn't do that.

Why not?

I'm reminded of a couple of parallels with the advancement of science. If you don't see the connection right away, bear with me a little.

Prior to the modern concept of our solar system, the Church and society at large were horrified at Galileo's assertion that Jupiter had its own moons - that little planets revolved around *anything* but the Earth itself. Even though the science was *obvious*, people would rather believe otherwise. They condemned Galileo even though anyone with a lick of sense knew he was right.

Later, when the planets were observed to move in peculiar paths - around the *Earth*, presumably - this was explained away by little "epicycles" - a kind of Spirograph loop-de-loop that the planets did to explain their apparent backward motion through space. When THAT model didn't explain things adequately, they further postulated that planets like Mars did even smaller and smaller loop-de-loops on the ones it already did. If you were to see the final drawings of what they postulated, you'd split your sides laughing.

Further, once a "geocentric" universe was debunked, people like Copernicus had a difficult time accepting that the universe wasn't "mathematically perfect" - that orbits MUST be perfect circles rather than ugly ellipses. It took Kepler to do that.

The thing is, in each case - and science is *REPLETE* with such idiocy - it was far, FAR simpler to accept a simple model that broke with pre-conceived notions than it was to support something idiotic and complex, but which supported ideas people already held. I mean, which is easier to believe is the truth - Mars orbits the SUN in a clean and completely predictable manner in an ellipse, or that it orbits the Earth in a circle but follows a weird looping pattern that escapes all manner of defining?

WHY do people want to prop up Social Security in the fashion it exists now, when it simply makes sense to create a *real* federal pension plan that actually makes money - in the very same manner that all people who plan for their retirement do? WHY are people even bothering to wonder - should we extend the age? Raise the cap? Raise the taxes? Tax the rich more? Why bother? This is like musing if Mars really wanders around the solar system - when, if you think intelligently - it's SO much more sensible to just accept that it doesn't work that way.

It makes SO MUCH MORE sense to create a pension plan that actually WORKS like a pension plan. We've got people all over the place saying "well it was only meant to be supplemental - you should invest your OWN money". Yeah. And how is THAT done?

What we SHOULD be asking is not the questions I mentioned earlier - we should be asking "What is it going to take to make federal pension plans like all other *successful* plans?".

Bush touched on ONE other concept, which is VEXING the Democrats - in his plan - it's not only your money, your offspring get to keep it. Why? 'Cuz it's YOUR money. Yours. You own it. Right now if you die before you draw any, the government just pockets it.

If everyone who works had a REAL, invested pension plan, there'd be no need for the elderly to be poor. I'm coming to the conclusion that government dependency IS a goal of the Democrats. Nothing else makes sense.

I'm coming to the conclusion that government dependency IS a goal of the Democrats. Nothing else makes sense.I think that's pretty obvious. Most of them are little Socialists at heart and, if you don't believe me, just listen to them talk.

An interesting history of Social Security:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

Sam, I wish that everyone had a real invested pension plan...I really do, but we have to face facts, not everyone does. Along with this facing facts trend, in response to vraiblonde's questioning of my statement about "too much money," that statement has to do with our nation's anemic savings level. It is pathetic how little people in this nation save. Rather, we choose to spend freely regardless of how much money we have, thus meaning that people will have NOTHING to fall back on in case of their retirement. If we did not take that 7.5% of their paycheck and place in its a social insurance program for the elderly that they will be able to collect, spending would be stimulated while savings, already at a low point, would go down once again.

I see Social Security as government-mandated savings, which I believe this nation needs in order to ensure that we do not have an epidemic of improverished elders..

I see Social Security as government-mandated savings
Funny, I thought that was Bush's plan...the current system is not "government-mandated savings".

I see Social Security as government-mandated savings, which I believe this nation needs in order to ensure that we do not have an epidemic of improverished elders..
But it's NOT savings. It's a tax. Nothing is "saved" - money comes in and goes out in the same year. It only appears to be a savings because the government makes promises in the form of little IOU's. There's no savings account - only an acknowledgment from the government that they owe you money in the event you live long enough to collect it. Otherwise, they don't pay you.

It's not savings, because it's not your money.

There's no savings account - only an acknowledgment from the government that they owe you money in the event you live long enough to collect it. Otherwise, they don't pay you. RR, think about that for a minute. You kick over at age 61 and what happens to all the SS money that you had in "savings"? Answer: it gets thrown back into the pot. Your heirs and dependents won't see a dime of that money.

However if you have a regular 401k or investments of some form, that money will be part of your estate and will go to whoever you want it to.

RR, The best way to keep government at any level from spending money is to never let it get into their control. That includes your savings. SS is not, as others have said, savings; it is a non-refundable tax.

...this is about as closed minded as I've seen you.

Once again, as I have said and as Sam and others have said; SS is DONE. Demographics are the begining and end of the story. It's not 'if' we end it, it's 'how'. If you don't think lack of people paying in is a good enough reason to, as you say, face reality, then, by all means, explain how all the poor people should be supported by all the rich people in their dotage.

Further, let's ride you back some more here.

It is pathetic how little people in this nation save

So, we do it for them?

What if not enough people have a home? Give it to them? No car? No big big screen TV?

People, whether they understand it or not, are screaming out loud "I know the government will take care of me...somehow'.

They, we, need to, again, face reality and accept that SS will NOT be there. It can't. We are wasting time and energy with the fantasy of saving SS and we are putting off the day when we, as a people, deal with this issue wisely.

Mr. Gude, I'm not being close-minded, I'm being pragmatic and staying true to what I see on Social Security.

I see a looming problem with Social Security. Congressional Democrats are wrong to suggest that the program can succeed as it is currently structured long-term. Therefore, I support efforts to reform Social Security. Private accounts are an option, but I do not believe that that is a medicine that meets the diagnosis. Setting up these accounts would cut over a trillion dollars from the Social Security trust fund over ten years, thus causing the benefit/tax deficits to start before the current projection of 2018 and the insolvency of the program to be pushed forward several years. This is not reform, it is an effort to undo Social Security, which I believe is a terrific social insurance program that benefits everyone equally and provides a safety net for poor retirement pensions or poor investment decisions.

I support efforts to increase the solvency of Social Security because I believe that simply allowing it to disband would jeopardize the retirements of far too many people. I fully believe in Senator Graham's proposal to increase the income cap for Social Security taxes, the ending of early withdrawal, the increasing of the retirement age as life expectancy increases, and the recalculation of wages based on inflation. To further ensure greater solvency for the program, I believe that the use of Social Security taxes for anything but the trust fund and payout of benefits should be stopped. We could have saved $300 billion towards future benefits this budget year had we not spent excess Social Security taxes on other items. That money, along with extra money we accumulate over the next decade, would greatly help to expand the base of money we need to compensate for any future benefit deficit.

This proposal is pragmatic because it does what we need to do: increases solvency for the program. It does not pursue an ideological agenda because it combines minimally higher taxes and a small reduction in benefits while ensuring future financial responsibility by placing that "lockbox" on the Social Security trust fund. There are two extremes on the matter of Social Security: the "let's allow it to run out" end and the "there is no problem" end. I find myself in the middle and I'm taking heat from both sides: well I can take the heat, I'll stay in the kitchen.

I see a looming problem with Social Security

Explain how you would reform it when there will be ONE payee for every payer.

BIRTH RATES. One mom. One dad. Two kids. I'm not making this up. It's been this way for awhile. It, the ratio, is getting lower.

A looming problem would be high tide to a sand castle. This, the boomers, is a Tsunami.

Let's here it.

Demographics are supposed to equalize after the Baby Boom generation dies according to many researchers. In essence, there will be about a twenty year crunch, but then dynamics should be more favorable.

To read more check up on the writings of Henry J. Aaron and John B. Shoven; one supports partial privatization, the other does not. They clearly line out the demographics shifts in the United States and how they are to change over the next century.