The American SS

[jj82277]

Imagine a time when there are no fidelity adds on tv. Charles Schwab is still in the steel business, and the stock market just died. After the first world war one of the more non partisan presidents of our time instituted a program to provide partial retirement for the working class of the country. After all, unless you were a Carnage you couldn't really invest in anything any way, so what's a guy to do. For the time it made a lot of sense, and I acually think that F. D. R. was one of our greater presidents for having the imagination to try to fordge a solid future for our country.

fast forward oh about 75 years, we know now that the global economy could only be completely destroyed by the complete distrucion of the continental united states, France, Germany, Great Britain and a lot o other well to do nations and in which case i don't know if your retirement package would be the first thing on your mind. There have been such government programs to aid private investing such as the traditional, and literally revolutionary ROTH IIRA. 401k is a household phrase, and if anyone has 25$ a month to save you can find someone to help you invest it. for reasons of partisan pride the 3/4 century old plan is still in effect. Is there anyone here who really thinks that this plan is woth saving.

I know i know. there are people depending on that money for retirement. that's really what worries me. looking at figures 50,000 a year gets you around 1500 dollars a monh in SS. that means that you were just making it by on 4,000 a month you are going to loose 2500 dollars a month in income. does that sound like a guarenteed benifit, or a false sense of security. if i told you about our little friend inflation the situation would seem so grim that i fear too many would commit hari keri so i will leave those figures out, but if provoked i do have them ready. oh and don't forgett early exit from the system means your family gets none of your hard earned dollars. the truth is that if the average american invested their SS contributions instead of keeping them at the nominal rate of return that the government gives us and we would all retier millionaires. (that's not exaduration 200/month 35 ears, 12% 1.3 million dollars all day long and twice on sunday. and that is only half the allowable contributions to a roth IRA 'who says retiring at 55 isn't possible')

I get it, Bush uses words like God and Faith, Good and Evil and i know that makes some people feel icky inside, but you have a.)keep big brother on life support and flush any chance of actually being able to stop working, b.)make new small brother and allow yourself to plan for your family.

and please save the transition cost thing, because it would be the cheapest just to let SS die and not pay that much of my income to someone else and invest all of it which would be my primary concern, but if I took that message to my fellow 20 somethings we might burn down washington untill we got our way.

I open the floor to debate, i really would like to hear from the other side on this issue.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I think that in an ever-failing government system, social security holders are being short-changed. As you said, its as if your money isn't worth as much now as it was when you were working. You don't get nearly as much as you deserve or need, for that matter, to make ends meet after retirement.

Sometimes I think social security is not only a private, personal joke, but its an illusion. While there is compensation, its minscule chump change. The average american is getting screwed. The working class ends up fitting the bill too. The system is simply not strong enough or robust to offer what it should or what it claims it does or will.

Times are changing, and social security is a tease. Its a dream of a dream being dangled above the heads of hard workers everywhere like a piece of cheese. In retrospect, this really makes you wonder whether you should bust your ass your whole life so much if this is what you'll end up with. I suppose something is better than nothing however. Although thats hardly a comfort.

If I ever have children I don't want to burden them and their own family with my financial existance when I'm older. I want to be able to be happy and feel secure in knowing the country I served as a citizen is capable of returning the favor. And I want to have the pride of knowing what I have through social security is directly proportionate to what I earned all those years earlier. To not give me that would be like short-changing me. Its like a bait and switch. Theres nothing honorable or respectable about that.

For my government and nation to tell me "We're sorry, but..." is something I hope I'll never have to hear.

 

[Cbarton]

The current social security system as a 'retirement plan' is nothing but a pyramid or Ponzi scheme at this point. It was based on a statistically inaccurate notion that less then 5% of the population would be of 'retirement age.' The inncorrrect age of 65 was developed back in the 1890's ( I believe that is the time period) when the Kaiser (Wilhelm?) of Germany wanted to make it look like he was creating an 'old age' pension. His stats people determined that less than 5% of the poeple at that time would reach 65, therefore that was the age he choose.

FDR's people used that same number, even though at that time the age was incorrect for the assumption (pop at the chosen age is 5% or less). Now we are stuck with one person's historical math error. I personally do not even have SS in my retirement plans (my age is 42) and advise anyone my age or younger to plan likewise.

Since we can't trust politicians on EITHER SIDE OF THE AISLE to leave the SS funds alone or bite the bullet and fix it (unless George Bush-43 can get Congress in line...not likely since the spoiled-brat, whiny Dem's don't even have the guts to let the Senate vote on judicial nominees, the COWARDS!), it will go bankrupt and may who were dumb enough to think SS would sustain them will be in for a rude awakening. Get your IRA, 401K, or 403b started, people. The hadwriting is on the wall....

 

[lollercaust]

Interesting statistics for anyone who needs to do debate on the matter, and/or is tempted to believe the platitudes of those who think social security is solvent.

When the program was enacted, there were 15 people paying in for every one person receiving benefits.
Today, there are 2 paying in for each one receiving benefits.

As more and more of the population reaches retirement age (thanks boomers), as life spans continue to increase and the average time that a person spends retired continues to increase (from about 10 years in 1950 to around 20 now, sources available upon request), the population simply is not expanding at a fast enough rate to support social security. It is, as it was very accurately described, a Ponzi pyramid scheme. If it were run by anyone other than the Federal government, it would be an illegal scam, and people have gone to jail for trying miniature versions of it.

A good example of what happens when the Federal government undertakes obligations greater than its means is currently visible in France and Croatia, among others. France is enduring a series of crippling workers strikes, because its federally-paid pension plans (read: social security) costs too much for the government to pay for. It also says a lot about the French citizens that, given a choice between a fiscally solvent government and selfishly demanding their own money, they chose themselves. France's government is currently running a huge deficit, breaking the rules of the European Union Monetary Market which specifies that a nation can't run a deficit of greater than 3% of its GDP in any given year, just to pay for social security.

Croatia is a picture of where the US is headed; there's currently one person paying into their pension plan for every person drawing benefits. As a result, their federal debt is huge (69% of their GDP) and their economy is completely stagnant due to the high taxes of paying for this and other social welfare programs. There's simply no room for economic growth if citizens are paying money to each other rather than toward infrastructure, federal college tuition and state schools, etc.

Additionally, how many of you out there would say you trust the federal government completely? If you don't trust the government, why do you trust the government to manage your money and not squander it before you retire? I personally don't trust the government with a dime of their money unless they're going to spend it on things that I personally cannot, such as the military or highways. If the money is just going to come back to me later, why bother getting the government involved at all?

Poli sci nut ahoy.

 

[Cbarton]

Agreed, Lollercaust. Is why I had no faith in the system 19 years ago when I finished college. Even then I saw the handwriting on the wall. They predicted EXACTLY what is happeining now, but the politicos had no spine then...no spine now....thus, here we are...

 

[uttahcee1]

what I don't get is that we need to borrow 3 to 5 trillion dollars to shore up private investment that represent 4% of the SS taxes I'm Befuddled if that was the case shouldn't we have a large surplus 75 years of 750000000 americans put into the system. that's 4 generation of taxes taken away from us if the average is approx 2000 dollars pre year that should give the total 1500000000000 thats 15 trillion dollars but we have only 1.8 trillion in treasurey notes if you want to what 20 years in the future
looks like watch the old dead end kids movies it's showed the two classes the rich and every one eles

 

[jj82277]

excellent point uttahcee

this is just another example of why we should not intrust our families future to the federal government. For the system to have ever had any chance of working it would have had to work like a mutual fund where most of the money taken in as reevenues were invested so that it would grow exponentially so that as you put it we would have something to show for the 75 years of contributions.

what the government has done to this point is basically stick all the money under the perverbial mattress and between misappropriation and our good buddy inflation we've managed too loot the savings.

and to kyhawkeye i am a financial analyst in training and your are ahead f the game. I sit down with so many families that are still stuck under the trap of the American SS and have been scared by the "spoiled brat whinny demmis" who are actually going on television and calling responsible investment gambling. and any financil person will tell you that you better have a strong personal portfolio even if the presidenst plan goes through because hey its your families future.

WARNING: PARTISAN RANT, the sad thing is that i really think that a large part of the debate over this in washington has to do with 06, and 08 more than it does with the futures of our families. as an African American i literally feel ashamed every time harry reid and and Nancy Pelosi wheel out Al Sharpton and Chuch Rangle to defend this archaen program. why do you ask, because since the Kenedy Administration there has been a 9/1 democratic turn out in the African American Minority. thats about a what 10 million vote advantage. somewhere in there. if that ever normalized like the Hispanic vote did in 04 then there is no more Democratic party. i think that in this past state of the Union Adress you could see the hint of the new direction in the GOP. Its sad because this is good for all Americans, Especially African Americans that by in large do not live to retirement age. But they put on these token black Dem. wouuld be leaders to sell their soles and the fortunes of their constituents down the tubes for what they believe to be there own end of maintaining power and that really tee's me off, but that really is another conversation,

I am greatly encouraged by the quality responses on this thread i even learned a few things about American and German history WOW. thanks to everyone for participating.

and oh yeh, what's up VLADIUS

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I knew people would participate and open up if only someone challenged them to think. Thank YOU for the thread. 🙂

(And hey, whats up. LOL)

 

[jj82277]

there are a lot of contraversial topics that i owuld like to explore, but i don't want anyone to get too mad. If i made a post about lets say R v. W or alternative marriage,
or foriegn policy.

 

[jj82277]

sorry, screen fart, but would that offend anyone

 

[MistressValerie1]

sorry, screen fart, but would that offend anyone

It might, lol, but the relevant question is whether it would be within the rules.

Generally, all viewpoints are welcome, as long as the discussion does not become excessively rude or disruptive. The rules state: "We don't intend to censor messages based on the opinions expressed within posts, but we will enforce the policies outlined both here and on the Forum."

Best regards,

 

[MistressValerie1]

I just found a site with many arguments both for and against Social Security reform, here: http://www.mysocialsecurity.org/oped/ -- although it's a bit old (2003), many of the theoretical arguments are still valid.

 

[jj82277]

Mistress Val i am sure i am not the first person to ask this, but are you yourself ticklish.

 

[AphroditeRabbit]

(unless George Bush-43 can get Congress in line...not likely since the spoiled-brat, whiny Dem's don't even have the guts to let the Senate vote on judicial nominees, the COWARDS!)

Isn't it a bit presumptuous to group a category of people into one negatively commented block? I think arguments sound more convincing in debates when there is no name calling and pure facts are presented so the reader can decide. :happy:

 

[AphroditeRabbit]

It might, lol, but the relevant question is whether it would be within the rules.

Generally, all viewpoints are welcome, as long as the discussion does not become excessively rude or disruptive. The rules state: "We don't intend to censor messages based on the opinions expressed within posts, but we will enforce the policies outlined both here and on the Forum."

Best regards,

I already once tried to start a topic related to Roe vs Wade and it was shut down before it hardly started...so I think it might be frowned on by other mods. 🙂

 

[jj82277]

well rabbit, when i get the spare time we can start again to try and get the pulse of the community on that topic, I look forward to hearing your oppinions.

And i don't think that statement was that presumptuous. I think taht When Reid and Pelosi threatened to Shut down thw Senate, because my president wants to let me manage my own darn money, they grouped themselves into one negative group.

I can only hope that we gain another five seats in the senate and remove the philibuster from the ballot box.

 

[Cbarton]

Isn't it a bit presumptuous to group a category of people into one negatively commented block? I think arguments sound more convincing in debates when there is no name calling and pure facts are presented so the reader can decide. :happy:

Count it as 1 part frustration with the Dem's and one part honesty. The leadership of the minority party is blocking judical appointments by violating the constitution. It only requires a simple majority, not a 60 vote super majority. They are blocking up the system with what is basically a rant similar to a spoiled child who isn;t getting there way. They installed that Seante rule to prevent the president form appointing judges that interpret the law rather than 'creating it" from the bench. My discription of them is, sadly, not mere name calling but the truth of there real intent. I feel they ARE cowards. They are blocking the will of the people (as shown by the last election) because they can't handle the fact they lost.

I have been a student of history all my life. What the Dem's and their willing accomplices in the media elite are doing is horrid. And they wonder why atlereatives like Fox news are doing so well?

It may sound harsh, AR. But, it is the truth. Times and the world are changing, but the Dem's in the House and Senate are acting likc it is the 60's and 70's. They need to have the courage to wake up and smell the coffee. Otherwise, they will find themselves sinking deeper in the pit they are digging come 2006 and 2008. They have cornered themselves into the trap where they look good only when the USA gets bad news. A foolish position to take. It will be there downfall

 

[AphroditeRabbit]

🙂 No I don't think it's the truth. I think that you are ousting half your listening audience when you group them into a block of idiots. That's the same as saying all women are stupid if some support an issue an etc. You can't allow your opinions of matters blind everyday arguments with thrown in insults.

 

[Cbarton]

Just my analysis of their actions...I feel they are acting like idiots. Not trying to alienate anyone, but I call it as I see it. Why pull punches? I feel the Dem's have made a calculated choice, and it is a bad one that will make them look like fools in the near and distant future. They repeat the sme trite, out of date, inaccurate message they used 20 years ago. The electorate is wising up, but they have not. To me that is being foolish. I watch them on TV and listen to them on the radio and they sound like kids I have seen throwing a tantrum when they don't get their way at the store.
It's sickening to me.

I'm not gonna pander around the politically correct bushes. I call it as it is. The press has been hiding the true agenda of the Dems, but now the alternative media is revealing the whole story. The charade cannot last forever. As it says in Proverbs, a fool and his folly are soon found out. I am just pointing out their folly

 

[uttahcee1]

right and weapons of mass destruction 500 billion yearly defecit in a republician control house, senate and whitehouse.I also forgot to mention the 126000 new goverment position under his presidentacy. if you are a true conservative how can you defend this man, change the bankruptcy laws to hit middle class and not the rich, oh yea how bout a consumption tax that's rich, I'll buy a car he re in the usa because of my limited means and get taxed 15% on top of the price while JLO , Brad Pitt and Jenna Bush buy there european cars and not pay any taxes that's a good one. I want to CLUE all you neoconservatives out there, here a little seceret George Bush and his Family was born in massachussett hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.

 

[AphroditeRabbit]

Why don't you point out the folly of all politicians then, and not just pick one group? I don't think ANY of the groups are exempt from criticism. I think both sides have made poor choices in many things, and one needs to look at the bigger picture and not support one side (such as republicans) just because you are a republican. No one is right all of the time.

 

[Cbarton]

I see folly everywhere...the GOP is being foolish for letting the Dem's run over them. I trust very very few politicans any more. THe GOP is closer to my beilefs than the DEm's, but many of the GOP don;t follow their platform either.

The WMD's were NOT the only reason for Iraq. If you read the UN resolutions, you would knwo that, rather than drinking the Dem's "class warfare kool-aid".

I am no neoconserative. I became one during college and have been for over 20 years. A neoconservative is a reent liberal who wises up...😉 I'll take Bush (try Kennebuckport (sp?) being in MAINE, not Mass.) over the Clintoneistas with large tax hikes, calling anyone with a decent income 'rich', setting us up for recession and terrorist attacks with faulty policy.

Anyway, back to SS. whichever side of the ailse you're on, oen has to admit it needs to be fixed. At least the GOP is offering a vailbe solution. The Dem's want to let it get worse as a 2006-8 political ploy. In otherwords, the elderly that they 'claim' to support they are holding hostage, as well as everyone else (via our furture tax dollars), which I feel there is no excuse for. Either offer a REAL alternative to correct the problem or get out of the way. If it fails (which it won't) THEN they have a future weapon. If I was Pelosie (sp?) and company, that's what I would do.

 

[coloman]

It is good that we have 401K plans, IRA's, Annuities and other retirement plans that are provided by employers to their workers to supplement Social Security because the vast majority of us could not afford to retire on Social Security alone. If the politicians had kept their fat hands off the money in the Social Security program and allowed it to be run by by an insurance or investment company whose specialty is retirement income plans we would have tons of money in the Social Security System and a lot less of a need for supplemental retirement plans. Hell, if you really want to get the politicians to do something all you have to do is change the laws and make them get their retirement income the same way all the rest of us do instead of a special retirement program that only they can benefit from like they do now. I guaruntee you that if they had to retire on the money Social Security pays you they would get off their fat butts and fix the current retirement system in about a New York second.

 

[MistressValerie1]

If the politicians had kept their fat hands off the money in the Social Security program and allowed it to be run by by an insurance or investment company whose specialty is retirement income plans we would have tons of money in the Social Security System and a lot less of a need for supplemental retirement plans.

That's what I've been advocating for years -- putting at least some of the Social Security trust fund in the hands of reputable private insurance and annuity companies, to manage that money in the same way that states run their own employee pension funds.

 

[AphroditeRabbit]

I'm not really sure why I bother putting replies in this thread because your responses, kyhawkeye, are all about party affiliation. You simply do not have it in you to say anything bad about your party, heaven forbid. I think it's stupid to be so blind with party affiliation that you don't see bad things your party is doing happening around you. If people actually pulled together and razzed every polititian for their mistakes, the people would come out ahead. People are too focused on groups, dividing everyone so that no one comes out ahead. When was the last time the whole of America was ever pleased with what was going on? I don't think telling people their point of view is stupid either, it's no more stupid than anyone elses. You can blame democrats all you want, but I know the system is a LITTLE more complicated than it being one groups fault. And as you can see, already, someone has angrily posted because of your aggressive wording, and calling half your audience whining cowards among other things. I someone don't think your point is going to come across to anyone the way you insistently present it.

You throw democrat around like the nastiest word in the world. Your politics are one sided and I know you have atleast lost my backing in listening to what you say. I'm taking it with a grain of salt because you are so prejudice in your opinions of the parties. I will say now republicans have made a lot of mistakes and have done bad things. So have democrats, so have all parties. But the moment I say that you are going to say something like, "Well atleast the republicans haven't done (bad thing) example 1, (bad thing) example 2, (bad thing) example 3 anytime. That's why the democrats are such horrible people and don't do anything right. The republicans atleast did good example 1, good example 2, and good example 3." That's a stupid way of doing things, and there is no insight into it. How is anyone going to get what they want when PEOPLE of the two parties can't even work together to accomplish common goals? We can't have everything, but we can atleast be mature and accept that others have different ways of viewing things without name calling. We can accept that there are positive attributes to each group, and with that, people pull together knowing they are viewed as having something to contribute, rather than pull apart because you called them what you did. The way you are saying things is just going to piss a few people off, case in point with a previous post.