SO WE'RE GOING TO SEND FRED A THANKSGIVING DAY GIFT!
Posted on 11/19/2007 12:48:14 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
It's one of the toughest and most divisive issues facing the American people. And how we respond will have a profound impact on future generations. Yet many elected officials refuse to even talk about it. President Bush proposed a plan to deal with the issue but couldn't even get members of his own party to go along. Congress blew its shot at reform in a flurry of distortions, sound bites and fear-mongering. And most of the presidential candidates won't go anywhere near the subject, perhaps sensing that it could cost them votes.
The issue, of course, is Social Security reform. And you probably thought I was talking about immigration.
But the immigration debate is minor league compared to the rough and tumble political environment surrounding America's most beloved entitlement program. Just ask Congress. As tough as immigration reform turned out to be, it was assumed that fixing Social Security would be even tougher.
Part of the reason is that people can't even agree that there's a problem, let alone how to fix it. There are those who are convinced that, because of the impending retirement of more than 78 million Baby Boomers, Social Security will be on the road to insolvency as early as 2016 - the point at which more money will be going out in benefits than coming in from payroll taxes. Others agree that there is a shortfall but they're more optimistic about when the dam breaks, insisting that the system will have enough money to pay all benefits until 2038. Then there's the last group, which insists there is nothing to worry about.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Saving and Protecting Social Security
A Plan to Ensure Retirement Security for All Americans
http://www.fred08.com/virtual/socialsecurity.aspx
actually medicare is even harder, especially with the recent medicare expansion (sorry Hunter fans but Fred is against it and Hunter voted for it)
I don’t think I will have a hard time finding folks round here to agree with me that Obama’s suggestion that we, oh... Ah! RAISE THE TAX! is a very bad idea.
First of all, raising any tax is a bad idea.
But raising this particular tax is a doubly bad idea. That’s because it is intended to dupe the gullible into thinking that more money is being put away in the “lock box” to pay for future benefits. Excuse me while I roll around on the floor laughing my head off.
What a whopper! All that can result from such an increase is that the Social Security Administration will send even MORE money over to the Treasury, who will then straightaway spend it.
NONE of this money will be set aside to pay for future benefits. You can count on that like death.
When the promised benefits come due, the Social Security Administration will go to that notorious warehouse in Ohio, pull some of the Treasury paper residing there, and present it to the Treasure for redemption.
And what then? Well, the indebtedness will be redeemed, I presume, at least for a while. But... where will the money come from to redeem all these trillions upon trillions of dollars? Well, the answer to that question should surprise no one. It will come from the very same families that already paid.
The beauty of this system is that you not only get to pay once, you get to pay TWICE.
In truth, it will be mostly your kids, and your grandkids who will be paying to redeem the money you thought the government was saving for you, but spent instead.
It is as if instead of actually going to the bother of investing money to pay for your kids’ college expenses, all you did was to put IOUs in a cookie jar, to be repaid from family income. Imagine the shock they will feel when thy go to the cookie jar to get the money and find nothing but those pesky IOUs. And imagine their chagrin when they find that you have no intention of making good on them at all, instead telling them this particular responsibility has been passed along to them.
They are going to be righteously PISSED OFF!
I sure hope I’m not at the receiving end of the “end of life” decisions likely to be made by this younger generation, ALREADY been robbed blind by their parents and grandparents, then rudely sent the bill.
Who thinks SS reform and illegal immigration unrelated?
I think they are related...since most of the illegals are working at the lowest wages...which means that they will not have money to fund any of their own retirement....and will take out more than they contribute
The best way out of this SS and Medicare mess is to improve the economy...and return more to manufacturing and creating good paying jobs here in America.
Every time a company moves its plants and outsources overseas...it puts more of a burden on the taxpayers to fund everything
I cringe when I hear “we need 40 million new workers in USA for (name your whatever here)”. We actually need 4 million new employers willing to invest in America.
NOTHING can help Social Security if the government doesn’t first stop spending the money that SS collects and start investing it instead.
Whether bringing more payers of any kind into the system, or collecting more from each payer, the result is the same: it is just more “green blood,” drawn and spilt. That might help boost general revenue in the present, but at what cost later?
And, any such a plan would mean many more SS beneficiaries down the road. Adding beneficiaries CAN’T possibly help an already strained system. If the money won’t be there for the folks already in the system, it won’t be there for an even larger number - in spades.
SO WE'RE GOING TO SEND FRED A THANKSGIVING DAY GIFT!
..it's too big of a chunk to jam down your throat...they'd rather feed you the poison slowly...this way you won't notice......drivers licenses an issue just an issue....the fact that if the illegals weren't here to begin with the license issue wouldn't even be on the radar. Everybody got their knickers twisted over Hildabeast's flip flop...no one asked her if she favored amnesty!
I agree.
Actually there is a conservative version of this argument, that SS would be saved were it not for abortion
but the illegals won’t get social security. They might get state welfare programs, however.
This man (an old Army buddy of mine) says the solution is for the Philippines to become a state, thus gaining 80+ million new taxpayers:
The Philippines Should Become The 51st State http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/jan/article528.html
That isn't really true.
Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme. A Ponzi Scheme needs a constant and increasing supply of new victims. But, adding victims only prolongs the life of the scheme a bit, and adds in an absolute way to the inevitable agony and misery at the end.
On the other hand new victims do help the early co-abbettors, the "early-ins" that reap rewards from the later-comers, and stand as supposed evidence that the system works. These are the people that now belong to AARP and don't want their gravy train interfered with, no matter if that train will take the whole country down when it finally crashes.
Yes, it is a Ponzi scheme. And the oldsters, who vote, won’t hesitate to raise taxes on their grandchildren to keep the gravy train running.
Nothing will be done until the system runs out of money.
hmmm I wonder what Michelle malkin would say about that
There is a greater threat to Social Security, Scientists at the Southwestern Medical Center here in Dallas are working on a enzyme treatment that can extend life to 150 years. That’ll break the bank!
Honestly, I think Dubya's final act will be to issue a mass pardon on 20 Jan 09.
He'll walk away with what he wanted by presidential order, congress and the next president can all then claim they didn't do it, everyone has cover.
Oh, come on... A bit of tinkering, raise the cap, index the benefits, means test, and the gravy train can run forever... the closest thing to a perpetual motion machine we’ll ever see.
OH, what’s that you say? The “perpetual motion machine” is a fraud?
Well, what do you know!
I would make the quarters increase to 120 quarters before you are eligible for social security. Right now it is 40 quarters which is only 10 years. I would stop all SS for anybody who is not eligible period. Kids should not be getting SS unless they have their 100 quarters. Parents should have life insurance to cover a death. People who get Disability SS would only get it at age 70 if they have their quarters. Raise the age to 70. Let’s say a person is 70 and has 115 quarters, they would not receive SS until they receive the other 5 quarters which is another 1 and 4 months. That person would begin receiving SS at 71 and 4 months. There would be no early retirement age. Husbands and Wives would receive separate checks but if you don’t have your quarters then only one check is given until both qualify. I believe SS would survive under my plan. Let’s take away the welfare part of SS! Your thoughts?
No congress would pass, and no president would sign such legislation. Better to scrap the whole program and rely on 401k’s, IRA’s and pensikon plans.
It looks to me like you will have the quarters and almost do already. 30 years equals 120 quarters which is what you qualify for. Now the only problem could be age. I don’t know of any other way to do it that would satisfy everyone. The senate won’t just do away with the entire program and seniors can barely live on the check they get anyway. It does not seem like a win-win situation anyway.
It is my belief that a great starting point can be found here (post #22) -- a self-serving promotional mention, of course.
It's a viable option that should be explored. But, you see what happens based on one reply so far. I like my idea more but then who doesn't like their own ideas?
that will happen as soon as we have enough votes for a human life amendment
How does a “kid” get 100 quarters? Any such kid would have to 25 years old and started working at birth.
Eliminating the life insurance aspect of SS is OK by me.
What’s the logic of setting an age for diasability? When somebody is disabled, they’re disabled at whatever age. If you want to make them wait until 70, that’s not too understandable, expecially if you want them to complete thier 30 quarters. If they can work, then how the hey are they disabled?
I agree about eliminating the retirement below 65. That’s a drain on the system. Raising the full retirement age to 70 is another idea I an buy into. But you have to let folks who are no longer working take reduced benefits after 65.
Overall the big beef I have is with your 120 quarters deal. I don’t think that people who retire with only 40 quarters get full benefits anyway.
And husbands and wives Can get separate checks, and wifeds DON’T get benefits unless they qualify. I get SS, but my wife (also retired) gets jack. We do NOT get the married benefit and won’t until she reaches retirement age, even though for the past 20 years she’s been nothing but a housewife.
In short, I give you an A for effort, but the thing won’t fly.
Those that work in hard physical labor jobs are worn out by 65 if not before.
There isn’t 10 million jobs for Walmart greeters. It might work for people that sit on their a$$ behind a desk but lots of jobs require real work.
The Social Security Trust Fund should be separated out and the $2.2T IOUs paid off with new publicly traded Treasury Notes. Then the SSTF can go its own way and invest as any real pension fund would.
That would make all the national debt visible in one spot and end all the confusion about the SSTF “lock box”, “on budget vs. off budget”, etc.
The SSTF investing in world markets could reasonably expect a better return than the average 5.25% paper returns on the IOUs. At the same time, the Treasury could expect to pay less than 5.25% to those people that want/need less risk than the SSTF can afford. We’d be saving $25B/yr in interest on the national debt and the SSTF would grow $50B/yr faster than it would holding IOUs.
Please! You're under the impression that the same group that would advocate for one would actually champion the other. Their are many SoCons out there that take no interest in economic matters. And there are more than just a few that actually like entitlement programs and would desperately cling to the New Deal.
“But then funding for agencies would have to be cut somewhere else.”
While desirable, why do you connect the two ? The Treasury would still be able to borrow money and run deficits — just borrow from the public in the open market rather than from the SSTF.
The Treasury can borrow by issuing T-Bills rather than IOUs to the SSTF. Since the SSTF is not going to pay income taxes on the interest it supposedly earns on the IOUs, the Treasury loses nothing by not collecting income taxes on T-Bills to replace the IOUs. Offering tax-exempt T-Bills at less than 5% interest would have plenty of buyers in the open market.
ok then it will be even harder to pass than an HLA
Heck...just take the SS monthly premium..place it in a life insurance policy....and at 65 have it start paying out the equity +interest....give the beneficiary some control over the rate of payout....WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO LET CONGRESS ANYWHERE NEAR THE CASH???!!!!!
Yes, true! But the public is far less tolerant — in magnitude terms — of deficit spending where it is visible. Of course, by spending the payroll tax surplus and writing itself IOUs, the whole accounting gimmick goes over far too many heads for there to be enough public outcry against the practice.
I believe you’ve got it backward. If given the choice between socially conservative issues and economic conservative (economic liberalization = free market embracing), the public at large is far more willing to embrace the former, in my opinion.
that’s what i said...SS reform can only come after we get enough votes for an HLA. not before
I completely agree your assessment. For the most part, FR regulars cannot see this far, IMO.
In short, I am a case where I have paid much more than I ever will receive even in non-inflation adjusted dollars. I have had the minimum retirement age raised on me. I will most likely be asked to pay even more on a higher percentage of my income, for a longer period of time before I retire.
I have literally been robbed by my country in this respect. SS is not an entitlement program, it is an insurance policy for everyone who contributes. Problem is for people like me it is neither, it is a wealth redistribution system, taking money from my retirement and giving it to someone else. I want one of two things to happen: My Government can stop robbing the people who work and invest the money instead of borrowing against it, or they can let me invest the money for myself in some government approved low risk program.
Hell as far as I’m concerned the Government could buy their own bonds with an annually payment and hand the bonds over instead of checks, that way the recipient could spend it, collect interest and spend that. If the us is going to borrow my SS payments to fund some other program, that is just outright theft, let them borrow them money directly.
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.
