»
Discussion
»
Feelings
»
Social Security Issue
| Feelings |
|
Social Security Issue |
|
Paul Wilson
since 2002-07-07
Posts 4711United States 
|
What are your ideas on president Bush's plan to fix the social security problems???? He said he was willing too listen too anyone that had a good idea, so maybe someone here can point him in the right direction. ~~To share my poems with you is to share my heart with you~~ |
||
| © Copyright 2005 Paul D. Wilson - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
I need to read what he said..being of an age to be seriously thinking about this, it scares me when someone wants to tinker with the system! |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Social Security |
||
|
sandgrain Member Elite
since 1999-09-21
Posts 3662Sycamore, IL, USA |
Gosh, I immediately wondered how long of a reply is allowed here. My personal opinion is, "It's crazy!" We're still feeling the pain of retirements being lost when the stock market hit bottom, so we should now put more into stocks? Even professional traders won't guarentee a profit or even the original investments. Someone stands to make money from this proposal but it won't be those investing for their retirement. I'd always been under the impression that money I paid during my working years was supporting those already on SS, and our children would be paying it when we recieve it. It never was a personal account earned by the recipient. Like taxes that built my children's schools, weren't what I paid, but my payments help others down the line. Therefore, this approach seems like a whole new ballpark, and is close to pre-social security days. To sum it up, I feel Bush's proposal will lead us into that (now non-existant) crisis. My suggestion would be to leave it alone, quit taking the funds for other uses and get a grip on Medicare fraud. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
That would probably fix it in time, Sand, if those things you mentioned happened. Sadly, Congress will never let the SS Fund go back to a Private Fund. They will want to keep it as part of the General Fund, so they can tap it whenever they have pet projects that need financing. As I've been saying, if Private Accounts are good enough for Federal employees, why isn't it good enough for the rest of us? What really gets me riled though is the new commercial funded by the AARP, who would be guaranteed all their benefits. They equate the problem to a clogged drain with the proposed overhaul of Social Security equating destroying the entire house just to get to the clogged drain!  Fear mongering tactics for those who wouldn't be affected by any change in Social Security, thinking only of themselves and not their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, or future descendants. If nothing else, the AARP merely tarnishes the image of the Greatest Generation (Golden/Depression Era). |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Or, Ali, they are thinking of their children and grandchildren, and just believe privatization is a really bad idea for them? |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
The reason we find ourselves questioning whether or not to switch to a more privatized form of social security is exactly the reason i'm in support of it. when held by the government, as has been proved over the last ??? years, the money is available to varied other interests. in my hands, it's mine. a no-brainer in my op; why let them have the opportunity to misuse it when I can prevent it? egowhores.com - really love yourself. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Doesn't taking private money, putting it through a government conduit to invest in private stocks -- just create a pyramid scheme? What, in reality, is the difference between government ownership of property and businesses, and government sponsored investment in private property and businesses? At the end of the tunnel there comes a point when everyone owns the same stock in all the same companies -- socialism is an ownership society too. Ron, Ron, Ron... you're not supposed to use the Privatization term -- they're personal accounts... personal accounts...  Bush has already admitted that 'personal accounts' don't help the solvency issue -- in fact -- it makes it worse, and increases the debt. So now he wants to have personal accounts on the side -- but, hey, unless I'm wrong -- don't we already have that? The manufactured social security crisis is merely a diversion from the real crisis in medicaid. Solvency for SS is simple -- raise the income ceiling for contributions and allow wealthy seniors to opt out. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Well Ron, I was referring to the AARP, which is a PAC. They only really care about those 65+ whom they claim to speak for with one voice. They could really give a tinker's cuss about anyone younger, unless, of course, those younger were no longer paying into Social Security. Then there would a an almighty bruhaha, silver quifs atremble. But then, the American Association of Retired People defends the entirely of the retired populace about the same way the American Civil Liberties Union defends everybody's civil rights.  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I disagree, Ali. My parents belonged to AARP, and they both cared. Having just turned 55 this year, I'm eligible for AARP, and I, too, care. Indeed, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who gives a tinker's cuss about their own children. That you disagree with AARP's aims is clear. Demonizing them, however, lends no strength to your disagreement, but rather implies your argument can't stand on its own merits. People are people. Belonging to organizations or groups does little to change their underlying nature. AARP, ACLU, Christian, Muslim, Democrat, Republican, everyone is motivated by largely the same base, selfish desires. That you can't immediately convince them your base, selfish desires should hold sway over theirs doesn't make them monsters. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Fair enough, but I think you misunderstood me. I was talking about the organization, the AARP, not the individual people who belong to it in one form or another, just like how I and others participated in the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms), but were not part of the actual organization. I really don't know how many 'seniors' feel about personal accounts for their children, et al, but I'm fairly certain where the AARP as an entity stands with regards to their membership rosters. Again I'll ask. What's wrong with giving younger workers a choice in their retirement? What's wrong with the private accounts which Federal employees have that make them bad for everyone else? And yes, I know that workers for some companies have retirement options, like IRA's, pensions and the like, but those are only as good as the companies, like Enron showed us when all their rank-and-file employees lost their entire retirement savings in the defunct company. However, the AARP, along with other groups, as an entity (not individual members) is against any change at all, even though said changes would not affect those 55 or older. Not to mention that any change would take several years for implement, and any program of choice would be optional, not mandatory like the current Social Security and FICA withholdings. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
You currently have the option Cat to invest in mutual funds, open a savings account, open an IRA, buy an annuity -- why do you need a government sponsored option? As a conservative shouldn't you be AGAINST the government sponsored option? |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Reb, I'm all for Social Security, and was truly stunned when I learned it was made part of the General Fund during the 60's or 70's and routinely looted by Congress, espescially during the early 90's. To have something which Congress could not tax and could not loot would be remarkable, and something I would endorse and try to have. And for the record, in case you missed this in prior political threads, I'm not a political conservative, but a moderate-liberal Republican. Not all Republicans are die-hard war mongering ultra conservative Moral Majority right wingers.  |
||
|
Paul Wilson
since 2002-07-07
Posts 4711United States |
Just think if there were no Social Security taxes taken from our checks and our employeers would give us the percentage that they pay in for us and leave it totally up too us too invest as we see fit 100%. The Federal Government wouldn't have a cash cow for all of their unnecessary pet projects and the government would have to operate alot more effeciently. I just read in the news paper where the recently retired head of the Fannie May part of the government gets $ 114,000 per MONTH approximately 1.4 MILLION DOLLARS per year as a pension.. I wonder how many people are doing without for this bozo? I have to quit ranting, my blood pressure is starting to go sky high. ~~To share my poems with you is to share my heart with you~~ |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
