Social Security should not be subsidized by the government. Not at any level. The government can have a deficit for military spending, for educational spending or adminstrative spending but when your government is paying people retirement income, the road is weary. Is it that hard to fathom that if people are automatically recieving government retirement wages, they will not work as hard and will not save as much?? This will force dependance on the government, and then people will elect more people that will grant more funds to people at a cost to the government. People will not work as hard, and productivity, the primary driver of GDP will fall. As that falls, the standard of living will drop as well. Its pretty straightforward and I for one applaud Bush's attempts to change the system from a "hand-out" system to a system in which the goverment will help you save. I am muslim and I know many Iraqi's. I have yet to meet one that does not agree that the people of Iraq have more freedom and a better standard of living under an elected government. Most even stated that they would prefer the US to have more involvement to help maintain their democracy. So in his state of the union we have two points: Iraqis voted for the first time in their modern history CHECK People should be responsible for their savings and not the government. CHECK I applaud Bush and his efforts. He was elected president and his party gained many seats in Congress. The public agrees with what he is doing, as do I.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong (as I'm sure you will). But SS is not a "hand-out" system. That money is mine. I earned it and I pay into the system for it to be there when I retire. Khan I don't think you understand how SS works. Link please?
The Guardian is a major, mainstream publication that is a very well respected publication around the world. It is professional and accurate. It is arguably somewhat left leaning in its perspective, but wouldn’t be any further left than say CNN is to the right. I think it’s fair to question its slant on some things, but to dismiss it as extreme is to dismiss yourself for not being even remotely objective.
I guess it depends on how strictly you do your bookkeeping. It's more like a Ponzi Scheme. The money you put in doesn't sit around waiting for you. I guess you do get "credited."
No, the money you put in SS is not yours, your money is used to pay for someone else's retirement, in exchange for the PROMISE of geting SS payment when you retrie. Now for 401k/IRAs, those money are yours, and you should always max those accounts. Hoping SS money will be there, or wishing it will be enough to retire is stupid. Way too many variables at play here.
I stand corrected deepblue! And my 401 is doing very well thank you! According to my end of the year statement (which I just got yesterday) 11.4% return this year!
You can count on SS being there for you. SS is one of the most successful and well-like government programs. What you should count is that SS retirement income will not allow you to live in the lap of luxury. Other monies will be needed. And there are plenty of vehicles to get you there : IRAs, 401Ks, etc
Do you deny that many people see social security as their means of survival during retirement?? Do you deny that people will save less based on that??
Many people live pay check to pay check and do not think about their retirement until it is too late to effectively save for it. SS is there for them. Most people btw view SS as a contract between them and the government; they pay in while they work and they will get a SS benefit when they retire.
If the money is yours why not keep it in an account as Bush suggests. His system is voluntary. Though some of you may understand social security, the fact is that most do not and it leaves them with the idea that they don't have to save because social security (the government and the people) will pay for them when they get older. And I am involved with the muslim community here in Houston and have quite a bit of contact with many Iraqis. These are not polls, but personal experiences related to me, which I trust much more. Sorry to tell you guys but your candidates lost and your party is breaking apart at the seams. The way the democrats were acting last night was just silly. Now that Bush is talking reduction in spending i'd like to see some of these Democrats responses when before they said we had to "sacrifice" and balance the budget.
Your first statement is certainly true, for those who are of lower economic circumstances than you probably are, and that many of us are. What's your point? That's what it is for. As for your second statement, I will certainly deny it. Americans have historically had a problem with saving money. Our culture encourages spending, and "living for today." Compared to most developed countries, our percentage of savings is pathetic. What you fail to look at is the fact that many middle class Americans look at SS as just one of several retirement income streams. They take it into their calculations for retirement. It may not be the majority of their retirement income, or close to it, but it remains important nonetheless. Bush's "plan" is a chimera. It's more full of holes than Swiss cheese. And it will not be passed. I don't think he really expects it to, unless he's deluded himself, which is always possible. It's a red herring, designed to make cuts in benefits, the retirement age, and similar cuts in SS look like a "compromise," and to "fake out" the American people once again, as he has done often enough since being elected. In my opinion, of course. Damn! Did I just do what I think I did? I post too much. Keep D&D Civil!!
Maybe the reason they live paycheck to paycheck is because they think social security will be there for them. Have you ever thought about that?? Maybe they would spend less if they knew what they saved was what they would have to live on when they are older.
More Baby Steps of What they Should Do: - Increase the retirement age. People live much longer than they used to, therefore a larger percentage should be spent working if they want life long benefits. - Tie the growth in SS benefits to true inflation and factor out the increase in standard of living.
Let me quote you FD Khan: YOu are (or, more accuarately after getting edu-ma-cated, were apparently operating under the assumption that SS is some sort of a giant handout - with people "automatically receiving wages", when in fact it is not. The benefits you are entitled to (up to the annual limit) are directly correlated with how much you work - the more you work the more benefits you receive - up to the 80 or 90k limit - after which SS is not taxed (thus making SS taxes one of the most regressive taxes we have). If people want to have extra SS $ for retirement, their incentives are to work more, so as to accrue more future benefits. So your analysis is pretty much DOA in this department.
