Is This Hillary's stand?

[jcscuba]

Social Security is sound for today's seniors and for those nearing retirement, but it needs to be fixed for younger workers - our children and grandchildren. The government has made promises it cannot afford to pay for with the current pay-as-you-go system.

• In 1950, there were 16 workers to support every one beneficiary of Social Security.
• Today, there are only 3.3 workers supporting every Social Security beneficiary.
• In 2008 - just three short years from now - baby boomers will begin to retire. And over the next few decades, people will be living longer and benefits are scheduled to increase dramatically. By the time today's youngest workers turn 65, there will only be 2 workers supporting each beneficiary.
  • Under the current system, today's 30-year-old worker will face a 26% benefit cut when he or she reaches normal retirement age.

If we do not act to fix Social Security now, the only solutions will be dramatically higher taxes, massive new borrowing or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs.

• Just 12 years from now, in 2017, the government will begin to pay out more in Social Security benefits than it collects in payroll taxes - and shortfalls then will grow larger with each passing year.
  • Within 25 years, the government will somehow have to come up with an extra $200 billion a year to keep the system afloat.
  • Within 30 years, the annual shortfall will be more than $300 billion a year.
  • By 2041, when workers in their mid-20s begin to retire, the system will be bankrupt - unless we act now to save it.

To keep the promise of Social Security alive for our children and grandchildren, we need to fix Social Security now once and for all.



No, actually it is President, George W. Bush's stand and the first President to pose positive fiscal solutions to the crisis looming for our kids and grandchildren. Of course Hillary doesn't think we are smart enough to have a percentage of our earnings taken from our checks and invested as in 401Ks. She wants it all, cradle to the grave Socialism.

[WiseOne]

EXACTLY! She IS a Socialist through and through which is what worries me so much that so many are being duped by this "woman", "beast", or whatever she can be called. She thinks we all are dumb and she has the right answers for us and she'll be ###### if she will listen to us ONCE she is in...NOT GOOD, people! Thanks, jscuba, for those stats...

[nohil-billy]

Nobody, including Hillary, is willing to risk losing the senior vote to do what's necessary to save social security. This system, like many government programs, was created with good intentions but has since run amok.

The way to fix social security is extremely simple if anyone had the ##### to do it.
Means test it!

When a person retires and his investment income (portfolio, pension,401K) exceeds their social security payment by double or triple, they should not recieve social security. Let them enroll in medicare if they want to, but cut off the monthly payments.

If a retiree's income is equal to his monthly ss check, give them a one time payoff, ie; their money back.

Remove dependant children from the system when the surviving spouse remarries or is making a livable (to be determined) income.

Remove any slug from the system who's problems are self inflicted, (drug dependency, obeseity, etc...) or limit the time that they draw benefits.

These are just a few doable ideas. I'm sure there's more.

A few years ago after my grandfathers funeral, I nonchalantly pointed out to my brother who it was driving the Cadillacs and Lincolns as the procession formed to go to the cemetary. I'm not one to begrudge the rich or elderly, but I'm tired of contributing to a system whose payments are being used to buy luxuries, and daily trips to the local golf course. Why should I contribute to a system that allows well heeled seniors to live beyond my means.

For a party whose mantra is to "take from the rich and give to the poor," I see a golden(no pun intended) opportunity to do what's right. I would vote for anybody who would consider these options. What do say, Hil?

[jcscuba]

Originally Posted by nohil-billy

Nobody, including Hillary, is willing to risk losing the senior vote to do what's necessary to save social security. This system, like many government programs, was created with good intentions but has since run amok.

The way to fix social security is extremely simple if anyone had the ##### to do it.
Means test it!

When a person retires and his investment income (portfolio, pension,401K) exceeds their social security payment by double or triple, they should not recieve social security. Let them enroll in medicare if they want to, but cut off the monthly payments.

If a retiree's income is equal to his monthly ss check, give them a one time payoff, ie; their money back.

Remove dependant children from the system when the surviving spouse remarries or is making a livable (to be determined) income.

Remove any slug from the system who's problems are self inflicted, (drug dependency, obeseity, etc...) or limit the time that they draw benefits.

These are just a few doable ideas. I'm sure there's more.

A few years ago after my grandfathers funeral, I nonchalantly pointed out to my brother who it was driving the Cadillacs and Lincolns as the procession formed to go to the cemetary. I'm not one to begrudge the rich or elderly, but I'm tired of contributing to a system whose payments are being used to buy luxuries, and daily trips to the local golf course. Why should I contribute to a system that allows well heeled seniors to live beyond my means.

For a party whose mantra is to "take from the rich and give to the poor," I see a golden(no pun intended) opportunity to do what's right. I would vote for anybody who would consider these options. What do say, Hil?

Do think you would be so excited about a "means test" if you had planned for Social Security being part of your retirement program. George W. Bush has repeatedly offered the solution. Let each individual worker opt for putting X amount of their FICA directly into a 401K type mutual fund. Start with people at a given age that would have to be determined to be fiscally sound, let them invest, have employer contributions and individual extorted contributions continue to fund those currently on the program until it can be phased out completely after all those currently receiving it are deceased. Don't want to even hear that we aren't smart enough to invest our money, or capable of doing so, we buy homes, cars, invest, etc. If you and I tried to sell Social Security as an investment today to people we would be be found guilty of running a Ponzi scheme. In closing, how about getting rid of the 85% tax on monies received. Thank you Democratic Party for figuring out a way to double tax us.

[nohil-billy]

jcscuba,
The way the system is going, it looks like my alternative to means testing is not to see anything at all after 45+ years of paying into it.
I'm not looking to hurt the average Joe. If a persons income is two or three times the amont of his SS check, then his personal net worth would be phenominal. Remember also that the day to day expenses drop dramatically for retirees. If covered by medicare, and a supplemental insurance policy, they would not want for anything. As for those whose monthly incomes matched their social security checks (maxed out, I should have mentioned that earlier) a one time payment of their total contributions would be a nice chunk of change that they could reinvest themselves. This would be cheaper than paying them 16K + Cola for the next 20 years. Leave everybody else alone.
Remember, this system was started to protect our elderly from choosing between Fancy Feast or Friskies at the end of the month, not weather to take the Lincoln or Lexus to the country club.
There is plenty of fat to cut out of the system to keep it viable for a long time to come.
Besides, it's a tax, not an entitlement.

[jcscuba]

Originally Posted by nohil-billy

jcscuba,
The way the system is going, it looks like my alternative to means testing is not to see anything at all after 45+ years of paying into it.
I'm not looking to hurt the average Joe. If a persons income is two or three times the amont of his SS check, then his personal net worth would be phenominal. Remember also that the day to day expenses drop dramatically for retirees. If covered by medicare, and a supplemental insurance policy, they would not want for anything. As for those whose monthly incomes matched their social security checks (maxed out, I should have mentioned that earlier) a one time payment of their total contributions would be a nice chunk of change that they could reinvest themselves. This would be cheaper than paying them 16K + Cola for the next 20 years. Leave everybody else alone.
Remember, this system was started to protect our elderly from choosing between Fancy Feast or Friskies at the end of the month, not weather to take the Lincoln or Lexus to the country club.
There is plenty of fat to cut out of the system to keep it viable for a long time to come.
Besides, it's a tax, not an entitlement.

no-hill-bill: I don't know your age, but I suspect you are younger then me, just turned 61. Means testing smacks of more socialism. They made their promises, not pay out the paltry sums they promised. George W. Bush's policy of eventual privatization seem ideally targeted for younger people. Keep the system sound, and give younger people options to invest their money. I disagree. It is an entitlement, I'm entitled to it because the stole my money in the first place, and it's not a tax it's a double tax, they get it from our check, then charge us 85% tax on what we receive. I do like your idea of a lump sum payment with say 4% interest and non taxable. Alternatively, I'd take what I'm owed as a direct tax credit, not deduction, but suspect this wouldn't help prop up the house of cards. Ah the Democratic party is so kind, they have such lofty noble ideas, only problem is that they are failing miserably all over Western Europe and the younger tax payer can't pay for the people that are receiving all the socialistic benefits. Let's mention something else..Where do you live? Obviously not CA. In CA. if I draw out 3 to 4 times what I've invested my entire working career to live on I have to draw an additional 25% to pay the taxes. I'm looking for Social Insecurity to pay for the taxes on the money I've already saved and planned for my retirement. One in 7 people in Western Europe live below the poverty level of their individual countries. Ergo, democratic promises, (socialist schemes) have been and always will be doomed to failure.

[nohil-billy]

You're right jc, I'm 13 years younger than you and in that unfortunate group of those that get screwed either way. This is definately a "what's in it for me" standoff. The people collecting it want it to stay the way it is, those about to collect it want "W's" plan because it will extend the viability of the present system through their retirement years, and the youngsters would rather see social security go away all together. My age group would see only a small return from "W's" plan and little or nothing from the current system that we've paid into all of our working years.

I have no problem with "W's" plan where it concerns the younger generation who have no chance to collect social security, and I wouldn't want to see a man your age suddenly have the rug pulled out from under him. But I do have a problem with people who are financially secure receiving a monthly stipend from a failing system when they don't need it, while another age group will see little return from either program.

When "W's" plan was unveiled it showed that my age group would get the short end of the deal. When I retire I will have paid much more into the system than today's retirees, and for what? Like I said earlier, I'm not trying to hurt anybody. But when I see people who don't need social security unnecessarily draining a system where I'm destined to be the odd man out, I have to ask myself the same question that I'm sure you've asked. What's in it for me?