If social security is bankrupt in 40 years, you better believe the government will have to bail it out, unless those politicans wants to committ political suicide. Social security may not seem like much to many of you, but it still goes a long ways here in Indiana, I know my parents' combined 1800 dollars a month will be more than sufficient for living a pretty good life style here (the house have been paid for of course). They have saved up some in the retirement funds but don't really plan on using them. So anyone who says social security is not enough is not telling the whole truth. Mark
If social security is bankrupt in 40 years, you better believe the government will have to bail it out, unless those politicans wants to committ political suicide. Social security may not seem like much to many of you, but it still goes a long ways here in Indiana, I know my parents' combined 1800 dollars a month will be more than sufficient for living a pretty good life style here (the house have been paid for of course). They have saved up some in the retirement funds but don't really plan on using them. So anyone who says social security is not enough is not telling the whole truth Great post Mark. Those who have gotten too immersed in econ 101 don't get this. You can't have real world econ in a political vacuum, though here the anti-social security folks's numbers don't even add up. Social security is as sound as the currency as long as the people want it. Hence, only scare tactics that sap the political will to have it can lead to its demise. I guarantee you that if the system started to fail you would have Bush, Cheney, Delay and the rest rushing to be the first to bail it out. Interesting figure. One of the classic simpleton arguments used to scareipeople is that in 1935 there were 16 workers per beneficiaary; soon there will be only 2. Sounds so scary and overwhelming. No? Well at present there are only 3 workers for every beneficiary and the surplus is stil growing. With the facts and not the hype; not so scary. As Krugman has shown 45 billion a year of tax payer money would make it solvent for 75 yeares, so long that it virtually impossible to have any reasonable budget projections that are longer. Apparently this is 1/4 of the annual cost of Bush's tax breaks to the wealthy. About 50% of the most recent requested supplemental for Iraq.
I heard on the news, that back in 1978 Dubya while running for US Rep in West Texas proclaimed that the social security would go broke in 1988. People are having some fun with that. Has anyone seen this in print? I would appreciate a link. I hope this is true as I heard it while reading and paying very little attention to the background media. It was a very brief mention. Perhaps on Keith Obermann.
There is no Social Security separate from the govenrnment. When Social Security is bankrupt the government is bankrupt. All monies taken in now for SS are spent by the government for this years' government programs. The money is spent; it is not in any way tagged for you or invested. All you get for your 6% payroll deduction is a promise that the government will give you benefits when you qualify. They can only give you those benefits by taxing the income of those Americans that are working after you retire. That's right the government is spending all the money they take in as social security taxes and don't have to give directly to retirees on general expenses. And we are still running a huge deficit. But they are promising you young people that they will have the government running on budget without borrowing from Social Security taxes and in fact will fund expenses in excess of the intake for Social Security when your time comes to retire. To me that is just laughable.
But isn't the purpose of the PSAs to give people another oar in the water to SAVE THEMSELVES WITH-- not to prop up the system?
No. The purpose is to replace the old system (and eventually eliminate it entirely, if the ideologues behind it realize their Ayn Rand spank fantasies)
Personal accounts are just mandatory IRA's. I haven't read the particulars but I would bet the government gets a cut though.
Huh? Aren't there restricted limits on how much can be diverted into a PSA as it is now proposed? There may be a long term plan to tilt the balance toward PSAs instead of SS, but what's wrong with that?
Yes, there are limits, just like there is a cap on how much you can put into the current system. This is of no relevance. It's not a long term plan to "tilt", it's a plan to "replace", if you're below his cutoff, you don't get the current system's guaranteed benefits, you get the freaking PSA. That's it. None of this is relevant to the issue that you are purportedly addressing - and it seems like you are being intentionally diversionary. Not surprising I guess. I will spell it out for you again in simple english what the problem is here: 1.President says Social Security system is in fiscal crisis/bankrupt in 40 years. 2. President says we have to address this fiscal crisis. 3. President proposes solution to this crisis, which it is privately acknowledged, will not address the crisis at all (and may in fact make it even worse, as it is heavily reliant on borrowing). This is really simple, giddyup, as to why this is disturbing. One would have to make a habit of being deliberately obtuse in order to not get it.
The purpose is to replace the old system (and eventually eliminate it entirely, if the ideologues behind it realize their Ayn Rand spank fantasies) Thank you, Sam. BTW did you know that Greenspan in his youth was a devoted disciple of Ayn Rand and he went to study group meetings at her home in NYC? That is why he is such a snake on the issue. Still crazy after all these years. I do think that unlike a libertarian I debated years ago in college Greenspan has totally accepted the need for state action with respect to traffic lights. That purist libertarian, a very idealistic African American, was reluctant to totally accept stop lights. People could in theory regulate their own behavior at intersections without government interference. They could then have recourse to the courts. In a pure libertarian society there would be few laws, but the court system would be a hundred times larger. It would be great for the lawyers, I guess.
If you read the same article that I did (from the New Yorker), they were more than just friends apparently, which is uh, gross. Edit: Guess what day was the 100th annivesary of Ayn Rand's birth, btw? Yep, last Wednesday night...
Sam, I just have known that simple fact I mentioned from an article years ago. Are you kidding me? Was she 50 and he was 20 or something? Gross. I take it he isn't a social conservative!
Bush criticized energy policy, federal land use policy, subsidized housing, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("a misuse of power," he said), and he warned that Social Security would go bust in ten years unless people were given a chance to invest the money themselves. Ol Dubya, what a gas! Can't permit OSHA to have work place safety standards. Just pure communism or the work of "evil doers". Also, that subsidized housing for poor or disabled people. Much better if they go and beg churchs for rent money. That will build moral fiber.
Word on the street is that he was a social conservative but little Alan was not. The laugh out loud post of the day. Good way to end the "work" week.
As usual W espouses simplified messages that red blooded Americans can understand. He never bothers with details. 1. Bankrupt? Only the 'trust fund' is bankrupt...ie the surplus. SS will always continue to bring in money unless we don't have any Americans working anymore. Estimates I've heard is you'll still receive 70%-80% of your benefit...IN THE WORST SCENARIO. That dollar amount is actually more than retirees are receiving today. It seems to me we have 40 years to figure out how to make up that difference without undermining the whole system by taking money out. One ironic part is Al Gore was blasted in 2000 for saying we should treat the trust fund like a "lock box." 2. Personal Plan? Under W's proposal, once you retire, your entire benefit is moved into the general SS fund which means it is taxable. This doesn't sound like ownership to me. 3. It's your money? The max benefit you can earn is 3%. If you earn more than that, the government takes it. This is at the heart of W's plan about how to generate income to pay for the system as a whole...which we know the government regularly borrows/steals to pay for general expenses. 4. You control it? You will have an option of pre-selected items to invest in. This is ripe for corruption with the government linning the pockets of Wall Street as they cash in a bloated fees. Who is the biggest beneficiary of this plan? As they always say...follow the money? For us it is a net zero plan at best. But I bet stocks rise just a tad in investment banks if this proposed SS plan passes. Why? Cause they stand to make a crap load of money...at our expense.
It really cracks me up to read how you little rich boys can presume to have a damn clue about what the working man does..... let me tell you why I live paycheck to paycheck....with both me and my wife working full time...cause in order to have a decent house in a decent neighborhood...we have to pay alot of money. in order to have a decent car to get us back and forth to work...and to take our kids to school....we have to pay alot of money in order to keep the house warm and the cupboards stocked to keep our kids healthy....we pay alot of money.... and guess what.....we dont make alot of money...that is with two jobs...and me in school to learn a trade that will allow us to make more money.... Social Security?? not even a inkling of a thought in our heads.....some possibly fictional benefit that is widely acknowledged to not be enough to pay our property taxes is why we spend so much money to keep our kids fed, healthy and clothed? guess again genius.... If I thought for a second that you had a clue as to the real conditions that your average working guy has to deal with....I might listen to what you have to say...but it is obvious you are thinking about your own pocketbook and damn everyone else......not surprising coming from a conservative....that seems to be standard M.O.
