There is something interesting about this post.
Posted on 02/23/2005 8:31:43 PM PST by CAOHCAUCSB
ping
I think we got one here.
reads a little biased IMO
You just signed up to post this ?
Live one here...
Hit n run
What's your take newbie?
There is something interesting about this post.
This is straight off the unbiased website factcheck.org. IM sure you all have heard of this. I am not trying to be a muckraker, just simply trying to start a discussion of social security. Anyone disagree with the numbers?
Me thinks we best sound the troll alarm.
You just driving by????
If our sainted leaders are so worried about Social Security, how is it they still haven't protected the money that's coming in? When you see the SS tax on your paycheck, just add it to the Federal Income tax portion to get your true tax rate, because the simple truth is they're spending it on other things that they aren't held accountable for.
I'll believe they're 'worried' when they start saving it.
I agree with privatazation of social security and Bush's proposal yet this article seems interesting to read. Everyday it seems we are getting new figures about how Social Security will turn out in the future. Will it be in 2042 as bush says, or 2052 as the Congressional Budget Office says. And we know that it will not go bankrupt, but it will not be able to fully pay the benefits out...
Yea, we should listen to the government groups who told us there was a $10 Trillion surplus in election 2000. I say by 2012 we are in the crapper. A heart bypass surgery cost 45k, SS is the least of our problems.
This is the definition of BANKRUPT. I think I will pay 3/4 of my bills next month and see how that goes over.
There is two things that stand out to me---
1. It states that if we do nothing to change things, that SS won't go "bankrupt" in the strictest sense, that retirees would get "at least 73-78% of what they put in". Well, that isn't good enough for me, thank you very much.
2. Did it state anywhere in this article that the personal accounts would be "voluntary"---which would mean that the "gamble" would be the choice of the retiree, with the knowledge of the difference between that and staying in the "old" system?
All of these political chicken-littles that are against this change, are acting like EVERY American retiree will NEED their SS to survive----which is not true. My husband an I aren't rich by any means, but we do have a retirement plan that is going to be our main source of funding---not SS. Isn't SS supposed to be a "safety net", not a "savings account"?
>>>Anyone disagree with the numbers?
I already pinged our resident expert.
Just come back to your thread when he responds. That will show if you are a muckraker(?) or not.
If Bush was talking about cutting 1/4 of the social security benefits old folks are currently expecting in the next twenty years, liberals would have a s--- fit. They would behave as if nails and other sharp metal objects were being passed through their digestive systems. It would be The Passion of the Liberal.
But if the benefits are going to fail after 20 years from now, suddenly liberals don't care.
THERE IS NO CRISIS.
THERE IS NO CRISIS.
THERE IS NO CRISIS.
THERE IS NO CRISIS.
THERE IS NO CRISIS.
THERE IS NO CRISIS.
THERE IS NO CRISIS.
THERE IS NO CRISIS.
THERE IS NO CRISIS.
Keep repeating it and maybe it will come true! </sarcasm>
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.