Posted on 12/09/2004 5:18:28 PM PST by Libloather
MR. RUSSERT: Private accounts for Social Security--the president has made that a priority of his domestic agenda. Will you work with him in privatizing part of Social Security?
SEN. REID: Tim, I can remember as a little boy my widowed grandmother with eight children. She lived alone, but she felt independent because she got every month her old age pension check. That's what this is all about. The most successful social program in the history of the world is being hijacked by Wall Street. Yes, Social Security is a good program. And if the president has some ideas about trying to improve it, I'll talk to him, and we as Democrats will, but we are not going to let Wall Street hijack Social Security. It won't happen. They are trying to destroy Social Security.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
If nothing changes, trustees project a shortfall of about $11 trillion in what the government needs to pay promised benefits to the coming waves of retiring baby boomers and beyond, into what trustees called "the infinite future." The system will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2018.
The way it looks now, welfare may surpass Sosha Security on the success scale. Nevada Senator Harry Reid is in WAY over his head - and the 109th Congress doesn't even convene until January 4th...
"most successful social(ist) program in the history of the world"
Social Security is a throwback to the Depression Era. It should be phased out. To say it is a success is to say bureaucracy and inefficiency is a success.
It's true -- SS has succeeded in achieving the goals of its initiators -- creating a permanent polticial constituency, shoddy economics be damned!
Might have been if every drunk, druggie, and supposedly ADD kid in the country wasn't collecting social security benefits.
Read my tag.
More like a Ponzi scheme, I'd say.
Harry Reid is an embarrassment to the Senate and his opinions are not well thought out. Of course, my Senator, Ron Wyden, is even worse.
Drop social security. Evil ponzi scheme! The founders never intended socialism, knew it was an evil to be avoided at any cost.
While at it, drop welfare, medicare, get the government of the business of business, and out of my wallet!
Top sends
If our SS is the most successful social program, how come members of congress have their own system which is "more" successful?
And here we go. Does Harry Reid even CONTRIBUTE to Sosha Security?
It is the most successful program.
FOR THOSE BORN BEFORE 1950
Now if we can get Dean in as DNC chairman, we will have pulled of the Trifecta!
Hillary's running to the center while all the party hacks are running leftwards. Perfect.
Who is this guy kidding? If he means the most succesful scam game which the politicians can steal from; he is right.
There's a clear difference. A Ponzi scheme is a plan whose investment success solely depends on latecomers putting in money to pay off those who get in earlier AND WHICH IS BOUND TO END IN A BUST. Sounds like SS.
But that's only been possible in retrospect through the base support program of "socialistic senility".
This is a highly inacurate transcript. In every instance, Reid called the program SoSecurity. The SOB's don't even know the name of their damned program.
I've been putting money into SS for 30 years.
They can keep every dime of it, if they let me out.
AARP grannies are incredibly selfish.
You must be a newbie. They keep everything if you're in or out.
I thought the same thing - a few years ago. Right now, I want back all invested dollars, even factoring in inflation, gas prices, the Carter/*Crinton years and both of those recessions. Then, I'll call it fair and square...
A lot of things aren't --- such as investing your money in a good solid American business which provides a livelihood for workers and their families, help the American economy and help your money grow.
We definitely have a growing population ---- it's growing faster than ever -- doubled in the past 50 years. We're the fastest growing in population country there is ---- but just like Mexico with it's extremely high birth rate, our Social Security program is in trouble. Mexico's pension plan is going bankrupt even before our own --- which is why they're insisting they have access to ours. Population growth can't be the only factor.
You don't get it. There's a difference between a legitimate business and a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is doomed to failure because the ONLY source of repayment is recruiting more investors. A bank's source of profit is the spread between interest paid to depositors and interest received from borrowers. If you think that there's no difference, you would be indifferent between a nice $10,000 balance at your local bank and $10,000 given to pyramid scheme.
I dunno. I'm a granny who will turn 62 next month. I'm kinda looking forward to getting the SS which I paid to the gov't when you were just a young whippersnapper. Does that make me incredibly selfish? :)
az
This is silly. It's a good thing that banks loan out most of the money that comes in--that's how they earn money. If they kept all the money in vaults, how could they pay interest to depositors? Your allegation that banks will go bust as people age and withdraw money to "eat" is also wrong. America has aged quite a bit in the last ten years. To my knowledge, no banks have gone bust because armies of ravenous retirees have shown up wanting to withdraw money for the buffet. Japan is much older than the US. Same can be said there. Even if it were true, that money would into the hands of people owning restaurants, and they would want to put it in . . . banks. Learn some economics before spouting off.
Unless you count the plan put in by the city of Galveston, TX, when they opted out of S.S. Now their retirees are getting an average of $4000+ a month for the same amount they'd have put into the black-hole of S.S. Of course, they don't have to pay off old foreigners who come feed at the SS trough, or the deadbeats who claim disablity, etc. Talk about delusional!
The banks will be fine. People don't eat money. People eat food bought with money. When they do, other people have the money. These other people will deposit the money in banks.
You miss the point the banks DON'T have that $$$$ it is loaned out and as long as there are more people saving and putting in that works
When they demand for withdrawal becomes high you have problems
IF banks kept all the money on hand that depositors deposited with them, THEN they WOULD be Ponzi schemes, since the ONLY way to pay the modest interest paid to depositors would be new deposits. BUT, since banks are generally not Ponzi schemes, ONLY SOME MONEY IS KEPT ON HAND. The rest is lent out, to earn interest at a rate higher than is paid on deposits. THAT is a legitimate business, and that is why banks are not Ponzi schemes. In other words, your criticism of banks is absolutely wrong-headed, since you would have them become Ponzi schemes when they are not.
Let me guess--you are in "multi-level marketing."
I am a retired engineer
But it has been a success until now...
First off, the amount of money coming in through FICA taxes has been far more than the government needs to pay the current benefits. So, our congress-critters have had a windfall of funds that are not counted in the official budget to spend in any way they see fit, i.e. to buy votes.
The only problem, Harry, is that things on the horizon simply aren't that rosey. When SS was first implemented, very few, if any, recipients actually received more money back in benefits than they put into the system. The simple fact is that people generally wern't expected to live much past the age you began to start receiving benefits.
Couple that with the expectation that there was always going to be growth in the number of employees paying into the system.
The problem is that there are now fewer people paying into the system, and that number is expected to continue dropping for the forseeable future. People are also living longer, which means they are collecting more, for a longer period of time.
So, Harry, here's a quick primer on economics... You've got an expanding base of people who will be demanding benefits. This base will be collecting benefits for a greater period of time. And there will be fewer people paying into the system, financing those payments. Oh, and by the way... The "trust fund," that holds all those excess funds that SS has collected over the years? Well, it's full of IOUs that the government has deposited, in order to spend the excess funds.
I guess I'm not suprised that you believe that SS is the most successful program in history.
Mark
Back away from the bong.
created his own politican scandal = created his own political scandal
It will continue to be the most sucessful program right until the day the money runs out.
Got news for Harry we are looking at a $43 Trillion shortfall and it's the biggest ongoing Ponzi scheme in history.
Successful how? Perhaps he means successfult political TOOL.
Demcrats have been able to scare seniors into voting for them.
Class warefare has been facilitated with this "successs".
...and the Titanic was unsinkable.
Everyone should be given the option of taking a lump sum cash settlement, right away. This would equal aggregate employee and employer contributions, plus some interest (maybe 2.5% annual rate). After all, we Do have an account balance, right? :)- If this were done, most people under about 40-45 years old would bail out. Those approaching or in retirement would stay with it. More debt would fund the payments, which is the cost of the "reorg". (Any solution will involved more debt.) The socialist redistribution of income would eventually die, as retireees die and the Ponzi scheme is closed to new suckers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.