Yup. And it's not as if for the past many years there were no people supporting each retiree sucking up all the excess surplus that was built up over the years leaving the government to pay for it all. That surplus was gnabbed from us. The SS system would have lasted a helluva long time without any problems if not for that. - N
even with the money that was taken there is still a ton of cash in the trust fund from the surplus. just look at the numbers
Okay, you folks say there is no problem. Fine. I'm not going to worry about your old age, or your children's old age. Keep smiling as you pass the fifth floor on the way down. After all, it's your business, not mine.
Well it's not like we can't already use our money to invest in the stockmarket. And we know how oh so fun that is not ever having to worry about losing all of your investments (heh). If any reform were to happen, I'd rather just keep the money all to myself rather than having to "invest", err, gamble it into the stockmarket. I also find it amusing how that proposal is to make corporations yet again more powerful than they already are. Like most companies are going to exist once our retirement age hits anyways. See ya later, SS money! - N
Initially, there were 16-17 workers paying into the system and providing benefits for one retiree, When was this? In the 1950’s it was 8 workers, I’d like to know when this was true. Do the math. A loaf of bread is the same for a retiree as it is for a worker. If more retirees demand the same relative amount from fewer workers, the tax on the worker goes up. The only offset is the savings and/or private retirement plans of the retiree. Using current levels the Social Security system by 2050 will be able to pay 80% of its expenses. It will run a surplus by 2018-20 well beyond the initial baby boomer generation, and that is assuming that taxes don’t go up. So the math isn’t adding up here on your side, why privatize something that works? But what about forty years from now. Will the ratio of worker to retiree be 1:1? No…2:1 it should stabilize. BTW tiassa, your argument of "...saddle my daughter with trillions of dollars in debt..." is an appeal to emotion, and doesn't cut it. She and her husband-to-be will probably spend more on your nursing home care than in Federal taxes. Firstly Tiassa has every reason to worry about his daughters financial future, idiotic jerks who only think of themselves, and the here and now. Adding 2 trillion to the debt, will only make China stronger. America is signing its socio-economic death warrant…this concept of a ownership society won’t work.
And your point in raising this issue? I was just returning the favor. (chortle!) Oh, come now. Who the hell really expects me to live that long? Can I get a show of hands? Better question yet is how many of those who aren't raising their hands are surprised I lived long enough to reproduce? I mean, let's at least be realistic here.
Harry Reid and the Democrats are giving George W. Bush a lot of credit for fixing the Social Security crisis. During the Clinton years Democrats were making dire predictions of Social Securities impending doom. Bill Clinton, Algore, Hillary, Daschle, and Ted Kennedy all warned us that if something wasn't done soon that the entire system would collapse in just a couple of decades. However, now that George W. Bush is president it seems that at least to the Democrats everything is just splendid with Social Security. Nothing needs to be done at all, everything is fine. So George Bush must have fixed it. I am glad to see that Democrats are giving so much credit to a President of the opposing party. How very gracious of them. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The crisis is really how Bush intends to "fix" Social Security, which will help break the back of the United States socially and economically.
