@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
What Bush wanted to do with social security was to privatize it;
He had the right idea...
Bush wanted to allow individuals to privatize only a small % of their SS account, but I think the left and some on the right shot it down.
Medicare is in worse shape than SS. But fixing the former is like pulling a thread on your nice sweater. Other threads come along - like the health care lobby, the insurance company lobby, the drug company lobby.
Looking at SS, here are some options I see:
1) Reduce Benefits/Eligibility....we have seen the full retirement age rise by something like a month a year. Someone x-years old can retire at 65.4 while someone 1 year younger must wait an extra month. Instead of increasing the payouts by the rate of inflation, go to, say 90% of the increase. A 13% decrease in benefits, however achieved, would keep SS solvent.
2) Increase Employee and Employer contributions from 6.7% of wages to 6.83% or so. That 2% increase would keep SS solvent.
3) Decrease Employee and Employer contributions from 6.7% to something else. That would put more money into the pockets of folks who have jobs, causing them to spend and create new jobs.
4) Raise the cap on the cut-off of SS deductions. Right now, if you earn more than x-dollars, the excess is no longer subject to SS deduction. If that were raised by $10,000, the inflow to SS from each employer/employee would be $1,320 per year.
5) Let the SS invest its surplus into something that actually earns money. It's too late now, probably, but for many years, under both parties, the government tossed IOU's into the SS Trust Fund and took the cash without paying any interest, allowing them to disguise how large the surpluses were or reducing the size of the deficits. Let the public be damned. As long as the politicians could get re-elected, who cares about what might happen 4 or 5 election cycles away.
And finally:
6) What this country needs, or what SS needs, is a good flu-pandemic. We are living too damn long.
Seriously, that is an unforeseen change at SS. Something they didn't see coming, perhaps. IT IS THE BIGGEST FACTOR IN THE SS SHORTFALL.
I can not possibly source this anymore; I posted it a couple of years ago, so I will cite it as being "anecdotal." When SS was set up, the retirement age was set several years above the average life expectancy of blacks in America. Quite deliberately.
Just think if bush succeeded in privatizing. The privatized amounts would now be virtually worthless. See what happened in the UK, and that was without a market collapse. Leave it to Bush and Reps.
@Advocate,
Quote:Just think if bush succeeded in privatizing. The privatized amounts would now be virtually worthless. See what happened in the UK, and that was without a market collapse. Leave it to Bush and Reps.
Just think, a relatively large number of people were able to be convinced that privatization of SS was a good idea. That is the other side of the coin baby, and it is not fun to look at that one.....
So I wouldn't mind gambling a portion of my social security. If you have it decently invested it doesn't become worthless and the market has always come back. And it would be your money. You could will it to your spouse or your kids or borrow against it or use it for all sorts of things that you can do say with a 401K or IRA. But the money the government takes for social security is lost to you forever, and there is absolutely nothing to keep the government from scrapping the program and stopping social security at any time. We are at the mercy of the government to decide what our benefits will be, if there will be benefits, or whether there will be any increase in our benefits and we will be fortunate if any increase even keeps up with the cost of living. If we die before we draw social security or before we draw what we have contributed, all unpaid contributions are lost to us and our heirs.
Yeah I would have liked to have been able to manage my own account. I understand that it wouldn't be everybody's cup of tea.
@Foxfyre,
You probably wouldn't mind gambling in the stock market, but how many people do you think know what in hell they're doing? Even some of the best and successful people lost on their investments, and that includes Warren Buffett.
Just because you want to do such a stupid thing, what makes you think the general public can handle such a responsibility?
Yeah, tell that to the thousands of people who were ready to retire until the stock market tanked and/or those millions who lost their jobs and had to dig into their 401ks and retirement funds to survive.
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
roger wrote:
okie wrote:
roger wrote:
That's kind of an interesting explanation, okie. It may even be correct, but anyway, it's something to think about.
Now thats an interesting post, roger. It might even tell me something?
Something for
me to think on. Feel free to elaborate on emotional voting vs. principles.
Okay I'm confused. But you guys are tracking this, right?
I am confused as well. Maybe Roger can clarify with a better explanation?
@okie,
this may confuse you Okie but Roger thinks.
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
So I wouldn't mind gambling a portion of my social security. If you have it decently invested it doesn't become worthless and the market has always come back. And it would be your money. You could will it to your spouse or your kids or borrow against it or use it for all sorts of things that you can do say with a 401K or IRA. But the money the government takes for social security is lost to you forever, and there is absolutely nothing to keep the government from scrapping the program and stopping social security at any time. We are at the mercy of the government to decide what our benefits will be, if there will be benefits, or whether there will be any increase in our benefits and we will be fortunate if any increase even keeps up with the cost of living. If we die before we draw social security or before we draw what we have contributed, all unpaid contributions are lost to us and our heirs.
Yeah I would have liked to have been able to manage my own account. I understand that it wouldn't be everybody's cup of tea.
I agree. Actually, contrary to what Advocate posted, even with the stock market swoon, I think averaged over decades, conservative investments would still gain far better than what the federal government returns on those monies. And we were not talking about the entire social security, only a portion. Besides, the federal government is not exactly a solid investment, it doesn't seem to me. The only way they can pay anything back is to print more money out of thin air, which could eventually cause rampant inflation, essentially devaluing everyones social security nest egg anyway. How is that a very safe investment?
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:
this may confuse you Okie but Roger thinks.
Great, thats wonderful. Maybe he can let us know in more detail what he is thinking, and why?
@realjohnboy,
What you're missing here, rjb, is the revenues raised as the economy reacts to the president's economic stimulus program. It's not just going to produce income taxes to pay for all the current bailouts and national health care; it's going to put so many people back to work that payroll taxes are going to cover Social Security and Medicare into the foreseeable future. I mean, you either buy into this nonsense, or you don't.
Anyway, when I read things like this, I can't help but imagine a cartoonlike empty bank vault with a hand scrawled note on the floor reading "I.O.U. It's actually bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. Japan buys the, China buys them, Saudi Arabia buys them, and so does the Social Security Administration. They used to offer a fair return, considering the security.
@okie,
Hey okie, read this. This is what YOU WROTE
okie wrote:
I have a theory that America is basically much more conservative than it votes, but the emotion of a broad based cult figure such as Obama can hoodwink millions of voters again and again, by speaking in broad generalities, using demagoguery, and appealing to emotion. If the details of policies were closely examined, and compared to how individual citizens lived their lives, such politicians would not win.
It is an interesting idea. Maybe right; maybe wrong, but interesting. Some would take that as a compliment. You take it as confusing. I apologize for being over your head, at times.
Okie wrote:
okie wrote:
I have a theory that America is basically much more conservative than it votes, but the emotion of a broad based cult figure such as Obama can hoodwink millions of voters again and again, by speaking in broad generalities, using demagoguery, and appealing to emotion. If the details of policies were closely examined, and compared to how individual citizens lived their lives, such politicians would not win.
*********************************************************************
Partly correct, Okie, but you must look at the election results demographically also.
First of all, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama. If you think that more than 10% of African-Americans read the opinion pages of the New York Times and/or the Wall Street Journal, you know nothing about the graduation rates and college matriculation of black people in the USA.
Secondly. Some statisticians indicate that about a sixth of American adults are functionally illiterate( please note the word functionally.
Thirdly, left wing Latino leaders have succeeded in brainwashing immigrant Latinos. If you think that new immigrants would not have voted, check the indictments of ACORN-BO's favorite organization with which he worked closely when he was a community organizer with the brothers in Chicago ghettoland.
Fourth- Fifty Two percent of whites voted for McCain-a weak candidate.
When the campaign gets under way in early 2010 and the Unemployment rate is over 10% and housing valuations have not recovered, see how that 52% referenced above changes.
There is no point in the GOP courting the low IQ African community. They would vote for Minister Farrakhan if he ran for President. Blackness( the right kind of blackness-not the blackness of Thomas Sowell) is the only criteria.
@cicerone imposter,
Cicerone Imposter complains about the stock market. Someone should tell him, poor soul, that Japanese War Bonds from 1940 are completely worthless.
@Foxfyre,
I guess the market would come back long-term. However, if the crash occurred just before your retirement, you would be dining out at soup kitchens.
You say that the govt. could just not pay your SS benefits. That is pretty far-fetched. You may as well say that the govt. might just put all Reps in concentration camps.
@okie,
I don't recall the govt. reneging on paying out an earned benefit. Do you? I do recall countless incidents of a private firm reneging on a promised payout.
@Advocate,
Agreed, but one problem, which I pointed out. If they pay you with greatly devalued dollars, due to inflationary conditions brought on by the government printing huge sums of money out of thin air just to stay afloat and pay out all the entitlements promised, how is that much different than a private investment losing its value?
@Advocate,
Quote:might just put all Reps in concentration camps.
Thats what many on the loony left have advocated already.
