Bush's Social Security reform sounded good in his State of the Union address, however, I get a queasy feeling thinking that the federal retirement fund program is being overseen by corporate pirates.

I understand that the private sector financiers are much more efficient
than Washington beaurocrats, but they are also less constrained by government guide lines. Enron employees can testify to loosing their retirement to greedy, private sector corporate criminals. Just think what Enron-like corporate executives could do with the retirement savings from an entire country.

In my own simplistic understanding of economics it seems to me that in order for someone to win on Wall Street somebody else has to loose. Just think how wealthy the Wall Street upper eschelon could become if the entire US labor force was loosing.

If I am the only one who sees things this way then somebody please show me the error in my thinking so that I may sleep better at night.

i think its   that i have to pay SS now and i wont get it when i retire.  im 19 so i fall waaay out of the 55 and older bracket.  maybe some new shmuck will come along and change it up again.  my hopes are that if this gets through the house and congress, that they wont take as much out of my paycheck for SS.  whats really ghey is that bush is telling us that we wont have any SS so we should start saving ourselves.  OURSELVES!  thanks a lot BUSH.

I'm not too sure about his plan.  I would like to be in control of my savings and I am, thru a 401k.  But I very much expect the money I payed in to be there for me at age 67( :x )  I don't quite see how the power to personally oversee a part of your SS can solve the cash shortage.  Its pretty much a matter of input/output... somethings gotta give, higher funding taxes or less benefits.  I'd hate so see the goal retirement age going up

I think the whole social security system is a ripoff anyway.  Everyone knows that they are going to get too old to work, and they they'll need money to support  themselves when they get too old to work.  So if they don't have/didn't have the foresight to plan ahead why is it that the rest of us have to bail them out?  Let me invest my money the way I want to.  Social Security might have had it's use at one point in time, but I don't think it's needed anymore.

Quote from: weaselnozei think its   that i have to pay SS now and i wont get it when i retire.  im 19 so i fall waaay out of the 55 and older bracket.  maybe some new shmuck will come along and change it up again.  my hopes are that if this gets through the house and congress, that they wont take as much out of my paycheck for SS.  whats really ghey is that bush is telling us that we wont have any SS so we should start saving ourselves.  OURSELVES!  thanks a lot BUSH.

are you being sarcastic or what?




SS is one HUGE pyramid scheme.  Someone HAS to lose.  That's just how they work.

It's a sham.  I'd rather save my own fscing money than pay for some shmuck who didn't concern themselves with security in the future.  I'm 20, and have paid thousands and thousands of dollars that I will NEVER see again.

What we need is some middle of the road folks.  Sounds stupid but we only seem to get these far right far and left folks.  Things need to change like moderating programs that are being abused (welfare is just an example).

I don't mind paying taxes, I don't mind some of my income going to those that have already worked.  But jeez I get ticked off when my money isn't spent wisely!  Hell I can do THAT myself!

I don't want to have to work until I die but at this rate thats whats going to happen.

Anyhoo... just a little side vent there.....

I feel as though I'm fairly middle-of-the-road.. lol


I feel like TRULY needy people do need 'some' limited help.  

People that can work should work, and do not need benefits.  



as far as social security... I already posted my thoughts on that.

QuoteSS is one HUGE pyramid scheme. Someone HAS to lose. That's just how they work.

I remember when Bush suggested investing SS in the stock market. It really does seem like someone(s) are gonna lose. That's how Bush rolls, and I think his SS Reform Program is gonna be that way too  

OK SS is a ticking time bomb alright ... but its set to explode later than the medicare bomb whihc promises to be bigger faster than the SS bomb.
Cool.
Srinath.

I think most people would approve of some kind of minimum "safety-net" old age pension, call it what you will. With the greatest of respect to your founding fathers, clearly all men are not born equal, just look around.

Some people through no fault of their own will need a helping hand.

The problem is that in "western" societies the birth rate is in free-fall and the oldies are living a lot longer. When life expectancy was five or ten years beyond retirement age and there was a young population coming into work and making contributions through tax or national insurance schemes or whatever it was affordable. If we carry on paying pensions to more and more people with less and less making higher and higher contributions clearly this is not sustainable.

After years of being ultra selective about who they let in, Australia has just opened it's doors, especially to the young because it has recognised the demographic problem, an ageing population. In Britain a lot of people are against letting in Asylum seekers/ economic migrants / refugees but are starting to wake up to the fact that we need a more youthfull labour force, contributing to society to pay the nations bills.

I started to look at my personal situation when I was about 40, but these days the earlier the better. can we rely on the nation looking after us ? do we want too? Any government that can square this particular circle with it's population, let alone electorate, will be pulling off a very good trick.
Left and right may have different answers and theories but they all agree that it cannot be left alone, if they do they will have to print more and more worthless currency and every economic thing will implode.

When SS was started it was meant to ensure that old people didn't become homeless and starve in the streets.  It guarenteed a "living" amount to ensure you could survive when you could no longer work to support yourself.  That was back when the average life expectency was close to the age you started collecting.  Now people are living MUCH longer but retiring at the same early age.  People didn't really "retire" back then, they just got too old to work.  Retirement didn't really come about until after SS.  Then people who lived long enough could (with SS income) quit working and enjoy their later years in leisure.  

The BIGGEST problem with SS is everything they've added to it.  The disabled and children take up a LARGE percentage of SS money payouts.  

Also, there aren't as many children who will become workers to pay the SS for those who are retired.  White people don't have big families any more.  SS is a big pyramid scheme along with most everything else...  the stock market, government debt, a host of programs rely on more and more people getting in at the bottom and paying those at the top.  Why do you think they're not stopping immigration?  Immigrants have BIG families.  Also, business "needs" them to do the jobs that Americans "won't" do.  Please, we have 6% unemployment, they should be doing those jobs instead of collecting our money.

SS started out as a 1% tax.  It's now 12%.  The ONLY way to keep things the way they are is to A: tax at a higher rate. B: get MANY more workers out there to pay SS taxes.

Want to know the biggest problem?  The debt.  Right now SS money is used for other things and treasury bonds (IOUs) are being left in the SS pot (like dumb and dumber) the big problem comes when there isn't enough money for SS and those bonds need to be "cashed in" to pay for the retirees.  Now you're paying TWICE.  You're paying for the current SS costs AND for the bonds that were put in the SS pot.  You see, politicians are cleaver, they filled the SS pot with treasury bonds that they didn't have to pay continued interest on.  They fill it with STRIPS, bonds that don't have coupons, they just raise in the maturity value.  So, you don't get monthly interest like most bonds, you get a bond that say doubles or triples in 20-30 years.  Like savings bonds.  They put in a bond at a cost of $1000 and then have to pay back $3000.  

Who is buying these bonds to keep the government going?  Mostly foreigners who view the US as more stable than their own country and want to guarantee they'll have money when they need it.  A rich guy in Japan has a ton of money, he knows that Japan isn't the "greatest" country, that in the past there have been some serious problems that has caused financial havok.  So, he puts a bunch of money in the US by buying treasury bonds to hedge his future wealth.  Problem is, when the US debt starts to rise people won't think as highly towards this country, that may fear that something bad may happen here too.  So, the US must raise interest rates to get investors to buy our bonds, this just makes everything worse.  Right now every man woman and childs portion of the national debt is about $25,000 and growing every day.

Oh, and the private retirement accounts...  We already have them.  IRAs.  Why have another account system.  Bush wants something like the "thrift savings plan" that government workers have.  It's voluntary and you get three choices:  stocks, corporate bonds, government bonds.  It's just a BIG mutual fund.  As long as more and more people keep putting money into the "stock market pyramid scheme" it should keep going up.  But, as we all saw on 9/11, or the downturn of 2000, bad things happen and you can loose a LOT of your savings.

Our problem in this country is entitlements.  Everyone is guaranteed a certain standard of living.  The homeless CHOOSE to be homeless.  The hungry CHOOSE to be hungry.  There are enough taxpayer safety nets to ensure everyone lives at a certain level.  We don't have people dying in the streets of hunger.  Oh, and foreign entitlements are a big drain too.  We send out billions every year to "poorer" countries.  We can't afford to keep sending so much money overseas every year.

Some countries havs an effective tax rate of more than 70%.  We in the US are getting closer every day.  Think about it.  You pay 15% + in income tax, 12% for SS tax, 3% for medicare JUST from your wages.  Then, you pay tax on just about everything you buy.  You pay tax on your car and house EVERY year.  It adds up quick.

You think SS is bad, don't get me started on medicare/medicaid!  THEY will bancrupt us LONG before SS does.  Medical costs are WAY WAY WAY too high.  That is where we're all getting ripped off big time.

Enough, I'll let someone else talk for a while...

Amen! Entitlements.........those that have been on welfare for DECADES with some of the most severe abuses of fraud that reach uncountable proportions and the "government" doesn't have enough employees to police it..........problem is too big!..............giving the taxpayers money to "poorer" countries with dictators (you surely have to KNOW where most of THAT money goes)..........immigration.....UNBRIDLED immigration of those that have ZERO allegiance to this country and who work here for a few years and reap the milk and honey reserved for those that have worked for 40 years. It ain't right. Say what you will.........It is NOT right.
Those S.O.B.'s in D.C. are giving away our money and selling our land right out from under us. I don't know if some of y'all realize it yet but they are trying every trick in the book to give away our sovereignty as well. Peace, love, and sweet dreams, Wilson

Quote from: jason_SI think the whole social security system is a ripoff anyway.  Everyone knows that they are going to get too old to work, and they they'll need money to support  themselves when they get too old to work.  So if they don't have/didn't have the foresight to plan ahead why is it that the rest of us have to bail them out?  Let me invest my money the way I want to.  Social Security might have had it's use at one point in time, but I don't think it's needed anymore.

. thats all fine and dandy , but what about those who never went to school (college), has bills, lives from paycheck to paycheck, sure suppose you invest your money, hell im all for it, but, what if your investments go sour and you lose it all, then what? someone will have to bail you out, hell i invest my own money, but its somewhat comforting that ive a small cuishion to fall back on :dunno:

I think personal funds are a great idea (notice they've started calling them 'personal' instead of 'private').  putting money only under the mattress or in a "lock box" is a poor way to save for retirement.  Remember that Bush is only proposing that one third of your SS tax be elligible for the personal funds.  In bonds or stocks that money will stimulate the economy while it grows at a rate at or above inflation... nothing wrong with that.  The Dems are trying to use the 'gambling' angle to scare us, but mutual funds are always in the black over decades.  The worst one I have ever seen over a 5 year period only lost 11%.

if the government spent a fraction of the money they use to administrate soc. sec. on educating the public on the importance of investing and saving, we wouldn't need social security anyway.

vtlion, Yes you are right about mutal funds, or pretty much any sensibly managed investment funds being in the black over decades. I think the figure for the UK exchange is two decades in the last six would have shown a loss. This in itself is no gaurantee that it will always be that way. There was a mindset here that house/property prices would always climb and outsrip inflation but a massive "correction" in the 80s put pay to that.

The problem is that a retirement fund is normally "aimed" at a specific date, perhaps your 65th birthday. Just suppose you had been 65 on Sept 12th.

I am not advocating not investing, if you can, and not every wage earner can. I am just urging caution the stock market can be as much of a gamble as roulette, believe me I have spent a fair bit doing both! You need a good spread, if you have the capital or the income to support the loan a buy-to-let property may be an option but a good spread in essential including fixed-interest bonds perhaps overseas bonds and the standard advice to all stock exchange investors is one third for income, one third for growth and a third for "venture" ie gamble a little.

Not everyone is best placed to make those decisions so they will go to pension providers in some form or another who will have to follow rules set down by a regulator, in fact, the govt in another coat. Things like overseas investments may be heavily influenced by the politics of "good" and "bad" countries rather than on financial grounds. It so happens that I choose to consider ethics & politics in investment but that is my choice I would not like someone else, however worthy, making that decision for me.

This is one of those issues without a right and wrong answer but what is clear is that over the years, someone, probably you, is going to have to set more money aside to cover it. Governments will have to think long and hard about every unit of currency of yours and mine that they spend.

When looking for economies in spending the biggest departments normally bear the biggest cuts. In the case of the US it may wish to look at the fact that it spends as much on "defense" as the next TWENTY countries put together. Some may say that's fine but it is somewhat disproportionate to the threat, the alternative is to raise more in tax to provide the "safety net" for the genuine retired person who has worked but simply not earned enough to have set aside a large pension "pot"

No wonder they call it the demographic time bomb!

Cal,

The US spends more than the next 20 countries because we (whether you agree it's right/necessary or not) are the ones that keep the world safe from any "major" wars.  We are the one country that CAN whip any other country.  Face it, any war we enter to win we'll win quickly and decisively.  Vietnam, was political, the military had it's hands tied.  Korea was the same, China wouldn't let us go too far north and get too close to their border.  Iraq (5th largest army) 1 & 2 were a cakewalk.  It's the cleaning up that is hard.  Decimating the army was easy.  Our military budget pales compared to the welfare (SS, medicare/medicaid, other people programs) budget.  Here are some rough numbers:

Military - 350 Billion
Foreign aid - 25 B
Science/space - 23 B
Environment - 28 B

Housing - 300 B (help to the poor)
Health - 200 B (clinics for the poor)
Medicare - 270 B
SS - 524 B

Interest on debt - 145 B

You can see the military gets 350 B while human services gets 1.3 Trillion.  I relize that you can't let people starve in the streets but exactly WHAT standerd of living do the poor deserve?  Isn't a tent good enough?  Over here the public housing is 10X better than the housing some of the "working" poor live in.  You see, if you don't do ANYTHING, you get a better deal than if you work and are poor.

Personally, I'm tired of the welfare mothers who spend all day doing drugs and fu@king.  We pay for their house, we pay for their food and we pay for every kid they pop out.  And, because of the drugs the mothers do, the kids are a mess and continue to be problems throughout their lives.

Question:  Is reproduction a right?  Should it be?  Many people spend more time picking out a car than they do deciding whether they should start a family.  Most kids are "oops" kids.  Do you realize how many unwanted/problem kids there are?  Can you imagine how many more there would be without abortion?  Hundreds of millions.

BTW, thanks to Great Britain for the help in Iraq.  Was it right to go in?  Probably.  That oil NEEDS to be protected.  Without oil the world grinds to a halt.  Notice how Iran (the REAL problem over there) is now squeezed between Afghanastan and Iraq... coincidence?  I don't think so.  Would things have been a LOT easier if others (France/Germany) had helped?  Of course.  Some payback for the help we gave you in WWI and II.  Without the US help, you wouldn't be home now reading this.  Your lives would be VERY different.  So what if you have 20-25% Muslim populations.  Little do you know what they have in store for you.  You should actually READ the Quran before you turn your back on us.  This IS a holy war.  A "good" Muslim MUST strive to convert or eliminate you.  It's right there in black and white.  The Muslim mindset is, to be quite frank, wacko!  I've been to Saudi Arabia.  I've seen how women are treated.  How would you like it you couldn't leave the house without a male RELATIVE escort.  Had to wear a garment that covered your ENTIRE body, face and all.  You weren't allowed to drive.  You had your "own" seperate closed off eating area in restaurants.  You even had you "own" line at fast food.  Your marriage was arranged.  You are spit at if you don't abide by "proper" dress/actions.  There are "religious police" who look for infractions and whip the offender.  Brings back memories of the days of slavery.

The news doesn't harp on this, only the travesty of Americans at Abu Grab prison.  Oh yea, that compares to blowing up a market place or treating women worse than people treat their dogs.

Religion is bad for everyone NOT in their group (I'd argue that Islam isn't good for their women followers either), how many world problems were/are caused by religion.  But Islam is the worst of the worst.  You DO NOT want those people running anything!!!  It's funny really, there are over 5,000 different religions including sub groups of the big 5.  If only one is truly the "right one" and they are the only ones to go to heaven, there are going to be a WHOLE LOT of disappointed people out there.

Enough of this...  Gotta move on tonight...

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki

Quote from: jason_SI think the whole social security system is a ripoff anyway.  Everyone knows that they are going to get too old to work, and they they'll need money to support  themselves when they get too old to work.  So if they don't have/didn't have the foresight to plan ahead why is it that the rest of us have to bail them out?  Let me invest my money the way I want to.  Social Security might have had it's use at one point in time, but I don't think it's needed anymore.

. thats all fine and dandy , but what about those who never went to school (college), has bills, lives from paycheck to paycheck, sure suppose you invest your money, hell im all for it, but, what if your investments go sour and you lose it all, then what? someone will have to bail you out, hell i invest my own money, but its somewhat comforting that ive a small cuishion to fall back on :dunno:

What about them?  If we didn't have SS they could take the same percentage out of their check and stick it in a shoebox for the 50 yrs or so they work and they'd still have the same amount of money at the end.  

And if you invest wisely you can't lose all your money.  See, the way things are now, your cushion is going to get smaller and smaller, or if your my age not exist at all.  I'd rather be in charge of my money and my future, thank you.

im 30 yrs old right now, worked for almost half of my life, my home is paid for my vehicles unfortunately are not. the only way to deal with this is at the polls or thru letter writing campaigns or other means the ss system wont disappear, hell these politicians (usually) are career oriented.
back to ss, ive got a chronic disease, i am an insulin dependent diabetic, i will probably have to rely on the "system" sooner than later. sorry for the ramble, i do see you point, its just this were making plans before we know the total plan/picture. i plan on goin back to school before long, i dont plan on making a career at the local plant or the local fast food joint, i also plan on investing more, i work as tho ss doesnt exist, again aorry for the ramblr, i do see your point hto

But you CAN'T deal with this through the polls!  The game is rigged.  You can't win unless you're a party member.  There is only ONE independent in Congress and he either changed AFTER he was elected or was VERY well known before hand.  The two parties run everything.  To run for congress you have to either be nominated by a party or you need so many signatures that you'll never get on the ticket.

Now I'm not naive, I realize that with 500+ independents in congress NOTHING would get done.  BUT, there needs to be more working together here.  Less between party bickering and all out hatred.  And corporations/special interests need to keep out.  No more lobbying.  In fact, no campaign contributions either.  Give all the runners some free airtime/advertizing.  But even that doesn't matter because the PARTY sets the agenda.  The PARTY decides how the votes will go and what will come up.  The PARTY will NEVER allow that to happen, because the PARTY wants the money!  In reality it doesn't really matter WHO is elected, only which party he's affiliated with.

The system is going down hill and I'm worried about it.  But I suppose EVERY generation has said the world/country is going to hell in a handbasket!  We'll see how it all works out.